Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies - NIHR Health ...

Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27References1. D’Agostino RB, Kwan H. Measuring effectiveness:what to expect without a randomized controlgroup. Med Care 1995;33:95–105.2. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization inclinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol1999;52:487–97.3. Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data fromregistries to compare treatments: the fallacy ofomnimetrics. Stat Med 1984;3:361–73.4. Chalmers I. Assembling comparison groups toassess the effects of health care. J R Soc Med1997;90:379–86.5. Black N. Why we need observational studies toevaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ1996;312:1215–18.6. Altman DG, Schulz KF. Statistics notes –concealing treatment allocation in randomisedtrials. BMJ 2001;323:446–7.7. Feinstein AR, Horwitz RI. Problems in the“evidence” of “evidence-based medicine”. Am JMed 1997;103:529–35.8. Bradley C. Designing medical and educationalintervention studies: a review of some alternativesto conventional randomized controlled trials.Diabetes Care 1993;16:509–18.9. Torgerson D, Klaber-Moffett J, Russell I. Patientpreferences in randomised trials: threat oropportunity. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:194–7.10. Bradford Hill A. A short textbook of medicalstatistics. 10th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton,1977.11. Miettinen OS. Theoretical epidemiology:principles of occurrence research in medicine.New York: Wiley, 1985.12. Greenland S, Neutra R. Control of confounding inthe assessment of medical technology. Int JEpidemiol 1980;9:361–7.13. Salas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding byindication: an example of variation in the use ofepidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol1999;149:981–3.14. Walker AM. Confounding by indication.Epidemiology 1996;7:335–6.15. Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. The application oftherapeutic trial principles to improve the designof epidemiologic research. J Chron Dis1981;34:575–83.16. Byar DP. Problems with using observational databases to compare treatments. Stat Med1991;10:663–6.17. Horwitz RI, Viscoli CM, Clemens JD, Sadock RT.Developing improved observational methods forevaluating therapeutic effectiveness. Am J Med1990;89:630–8.18. Moses LE. Measuring effects without randomizedtrials? Options, problems, challenges. Med Care1995;33:AS8–AS14.19. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M,Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revisedCONSORT statement for reporting randomizedtrials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2001;134:663–94.20. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG.Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions ofmethodological quality associated with estimates oftreatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA1995;273:408–12.21. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR,Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports ofrandomised trials affect estimates of interventionefficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet1998;352:609–13.22. Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, BartlettC, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing theinfluence of study characteristics on treatmenteffects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat Med2002;21:1513–24.23. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing thequality of randomised controlled trials. InEgger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, editors.Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysisin context. London: BMJ Books; 2001.pp. 87–108.24. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ,Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empiricalevidence of design-related bias in studies ofdiagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061–6.25. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K,Sanderson C, Bain C. Choosing betweenrandomised and non-randomised studies: asystematic review. Health Technol Assess1998;2(13).26. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, SheldonTA, Russell IT, Black AMS. A systematic review ofcomparisons of effect sizes derived fromrandomised and non-randomised studies. HealthTechnol Assess 2000;4(34).95© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.