Reported effects in randomized controlled trials were compared with those of nonrandomized trials in cholecystectomy.

Abstract Objectives Because external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be insufficient, the performance of nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) is increasingly debated. RCTs and nRCTs were compared using the example of laparoscopic vs. open cholecystectomy (LC vs. OC). Study Design and Setting RCTs and nRCTs comparing LC and OC were identified by searching PubMed. To assess internal and external validity of the studies, patient characteristics, relative risks, and mean differences of RCTs and nRCTs were compared by meta-analytic techniques. Results In total, 162 studies were analyzed (136 nRCTs and 26 RCTs). Significant discrepancies between RCT- and nRCT-based results were revealed for 3 of 15 variables: overall complications ( P P P Conclusion The results of RCTs and nRCTs differ significantly in at least 20% of the variables. External validities of RCTs and nRCTs in LC vs. OC appear to be similar. Between-study heterogeneity was larger in nRCTs than in RCTs of cholecystectomy.