Objectives

• Investigate the extent to which the findings of randomised and non-randomised studies differ when conducted for the same clinical question and explore potential reasons for observed discrepancies, in particular choice of analytical method

• Assess whether different analytical methods used in non-randomised studies are likely to produce valid and unbiased estimates of relative effectiveness (a key input to economic evaluations)

• Provide findings as methodological recommendations that help HTA agencies, regulators and the wider research community and other interested stakeholders to analyse and interpret non-randomised data in economic evaluations 

​

Methodology

• Perform a large-scale meta-epidemiological review to obtain estimates of the discrepancy in treatment effects in randomised and non-randomised studies using various analytical methods

• Develop empirically based recommendations that include input from international stakeholders gathered from a series of workshops

• Pilot test recommendations using published NICE guidance

​

Outcomes

• A peer-reviewed publication with the results of a meta-epidemiological study comparing effect sizes in randomised and non-randomised studies

• A set of empirically based recommendations on the analysis and interpretation of non-randomised studies and their analytical methods for economic evaluations

Leads

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

 

London School of Economics and Political Science

​

Principal Investigators

Pall Jonsson

Maximilian Salcher

​

​