This is an archived version of the Handbook. For the current version, please go to or search for this chapter here.  Evidence of risk of bias in non-randomized studies

Some insight into the risk of bias in non-randomized studies can be obtained by comparing randomized trials at low risk of bias with randomized trials at high risk of bias. Controlled trials that allocate participants by quasi-randomization, or that fail to conceal allocation during recruitment, are at risk of selection bias, just like a prospectively conducted, overtly non-randomized, trial or cohort study. Chapter 8 reviews evidence on several aspects of risk of bias in randomized trials, and points out that methodological limitations in randomized trials tend to exaggerate the beneficial effects of interventions.


Researchers have also compared the findings of separate meta-analyses of randomized trials and NRS of the same research question, assuming that such methodological systematic reviews provide a way to investigate the risk of bias in NRS. Some reviews of this kind have reported discrepancies by study design but fair comparisons are very difficult to make (MacLehose 2000). There are at least two reasons for this.


These reasons may explain the inconsistent conclusions from methodological systematic reviews that have compared findings from randomized trials and NRS of the same research question. Deeks et al. reviewed eight such reviews (Deeks 2003), and found that:


A similar methodological review compared the findings of randomized trials and patient preference studies (King 2005). The review concluded that there is little evidence that preferences “significantly affect validity”, such that preferences did not appear to confound intervention effects.


Some considerations in the interpretation of these sorts of empirical studies are relevant. First, both the publication of primary studies and the selection of primary studies by review authors may be biased. There is also the possibility of bias in their classification of the review findings. Deeks et al. found that the same comparison was sometimes classified as discrepant in one review and comparable in a second. This highlights the difficulty of defining what represents a ‘difference’.


Second, the observation that differences were not consistently optimistic remains an important one and is consistent with the principle that effect estimates from NRS are more heterogeneous than expected by chance (Greenland 2004). Some empirical evidence for this comes from innovative simulation studies (Deeks 2003). Deeks et al. pointed out that biases in NRS are highly variable, and may best be considered as introducing extra uncertainty in the results rather than an estimable systematic bias. This uncertainty acts over and above that accounted for in confidence intervals, and in large studies may easily be 5 to 10 times the magnitude of the 95% confidence interval.


Finally, methodological reviews are caught in a circular loop: they need to assume either that NRS are valid and hence differences between effect estimates from randomized trials and NRS are also valid and can be attributed to external factors, or that NRS are biased and hence differences between effect estimates from randomized trials and NRS can be explained by differential risk of bias. The truth may well lie somewhere in between these extremes, but the fact remains that methodological reviews cannot unequivocally partition discrepancies to different sources. Moreover, if multiple factors distinguish randomized trials and NRS and influence effect size, then observing no difference between the effect sizes estimated from randomized trials and NRS can also be explained as the consequence of effects of multiple factors influencing the effect of an intervention in different directions. It is not logical to assume that finding no difference means that NRS are valid and finding a difference means that NRS are not valid.