Observational data provide invaluable real-world information in medicine, but certain methodological considerations are required to derive causal estimates. In this systematic review, we evaluated the methodology and reporting quality of individual-level patient data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs) conducted with non-randomized exposures, published in 2009, 2014, and 2019 that sought to estimate a causal relationship in medicine. We screened over 16,000 titles and abstracts, reviewed 45 full-text articles out of the 167 deemed potentially eligible, and included 29 into the analysis. Unfortunately, we found that causal methodologies were rarely implemented, and reporting was generally poor across studies. Specifically, only three of the 29 articles used quasi-experimental methods, and no study used G-methods to adjust for time-varying confounding. To address these issues, we propose stronger collaborations between physicians and methodologists to ensure that causal methodologies are properly implemented in IPD-MAs. In addition, we put forward a suggested checklist of reporting guidelines for IPD-MAs that utilize causal methods. This checklist could improve reporting thereby potentially enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of IPD-MAs, which can be considered one of the most valuable sources of evidence for health policy.

Non-randomized studies aim to reveal whether or not interventions are effective in real-life clinical practice, and there is a growing interest in including such evidence in the decision-making process. We evaluate existing methodologies and present new approaches to using non-randomized evidence in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when the aim is to assess relative treatment effects. We first discuss how to assess compatibility between the two types of evidence. We then present and compare an array of alternative methods that allow the inclusion of non-randomized studies in a network meta-analysis of RCTs: the naïve data synthesis, the design-adjusted synthesis, the use of non-randomized evidence as prior information and the use of three-level hierarchical models. We apply some of the methods in two previously published clinical examples comparing percutaneous interventions for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis and antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. We discuss in depth the advantages and limitations of each method, and we conclude that the inclusion of real-world evidence from non-randomized studies has the potential to corroborate findings from RCTs, increase precision and enhance the decision-making process.