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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References9627. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr. Randomizedversus historical controls for clinical trials. Am JMed 1982;72:233–40.28. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictabilityparadox: review of empirical comparisons ofrandomised and non-randomised clinical trials.BMJ 1998;317:1185–90.29. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation toprotect against selection bias in healthcare trials(Cochrane Methodology Review). In TheCochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: UpdateSoftware; 2002.30. Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith HJ. Evidencefavoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospitalphase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med1982;72:233–40.31. Diehl LF, Perry DJ. A comparison of randomizedconcurrent control groups with matched historicalcontrol groups: are historical controls valid? J ClinOncol 1986;4:1114–20.32. Benson K, Hartz A. A comparison of observationalstudies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl JMed 2000;342:1878–86.33. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized,controlled trials, observational studies, and thehierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med2000;342:1887–92.34. Ioannidis JPA, Haidich A, Pappa M, Pantazis N,Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, et al. Comparison ofevidence of treatment effects in randomized andnon randomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821–30.35. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. The efficacy ofpsychological educational, and behaviouraltreatments: confirmation from meta-analysis. AmPsychol 1993;48:1181–209.36. Wilson DB, Lipsey MW. The role of method intreatment effectiveness research: evidence frommeta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2001;6:413–29.37. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How studydesign affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy.II: surgical. Stat Med 1989;8:455–66.38. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How studydesign affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy.I: medical. Stat Med 1989;8:441–54.39. Ottenbacher K. Impact of random assignment onstudy outcome: an empirical examination. ControlClin Trials 1992;13:50–61.40. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials orobservational tribulations? N Engl J Med2000;342:1907–9.41. Kunz R, Khan KS, Nuemayer H, Sacks HS,Liu P-Y, Anderson G, et al. Observational studiesand randomized trials. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1194–7.42. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias?A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 1997;9:15–21.43. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reportedmethodologic quality and discrepancies betweenlarge and small randomized trials in metaanalyses.Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982–9.44. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, TugwellP, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomizedcontrolled trials: an annotated bibliography of scalesand checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62–73.45. Cooper H. The integrative research review: asystematic approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1984.46. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C,Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing thequality of reports of randomized clinical trials: isblinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.47. Clark HD, Wells GA, Huet C, McAlister FA, SalmiLR, Fergusson D, et al. Assessing the quality ofrandomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale.Control Clin Trials 1999;20:448–52.48. Wortman PM. Judging research quality. In CooperH, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of researchsynthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation;1994. pp. 97–109.49. Campbell DT, Stanley JC, editors. Experimentaland quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1966.50. Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-experimentation:design and analysis issues for field settings.Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; 1979.51. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, SilvermanB, Schroeder B, Reitman D, et al. A method forassessing the quality of a randomized control trial.Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31–49.52. Bangert-Drowns RL, Wells-Parker E, Chevillard I.Assessing the methodological quality of research innarrative reviews and meta-analyses. In Bryant KJ,Windle M, editors. The science of prevention:methodological advances from alcohol andsubstance abuse research. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association; 1997.pp. 405–29.53. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing thequality of randomized controlled trials. Currentissues and future directions. Int J Technol AssessHealth Care 1996;12:195–208.54. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews inhealth care: assessing the quality of controlledclinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42.55. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Grimes DA,Dore CJ. The methodologic quality ofrandomization as assessed from reports of trials inspecialist and general medical journals. Online JCurr Clin Trials 1995;Aug 26:Doc No 197.
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 2756. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr.Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinicaltrials. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1358–61.57. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurementscales: a practical guide to their development anduse. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.58. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical lookat some popular meta-analytic methods. Am JEpidemiol 1994;140:290–6.59. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazardsof scoring the quality of clinical trials for metaanalysis.JAMA 1999;282:1054–60.60. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, BoothA. A review of the use of health status measures ineconomic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(9).61. Morris JJ, Smith R, Glower DD, Muhlbaier LH,Reves JG, Wechsler AS, et al. Clinical evaluation ofsingle versus multiple mammary artery bypass.Circulation 1990;82:214–23.62. Nichol K, Baken L, Wuorenma J, Nelson A. Thehealth and economic benefits associated withpneumococcal vaccination of elderly persons withchronic lung disease. Arch Intern Med1999;159:2437–42.63. Walker JD, Dodds RA, Murrells TJ, Bending JJ,Mattock MB, Keen H. Restriction of dietaryprotein and progression of renal failure in diabeticnephropathy. Lancet 1989;ii:1411–14.64. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 12 questionsto help you make sense of a cohort study. Oxford:Critical Appraisal Skills Programme; 1999.65. Thomas H. Quality assessment tool forquantitative studies. Effective Public HealthPractice Project. McMaster University,Toronto.66. Wells G, Shay B. Data extraction for nonrandomisedsystematic reviews. University ofOttawa, Ottawa.67. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG,Boers M, Knipschild PG. Balneotherapy andquality assessment: interobserver reliability of theMaastricht criteria list and the need for blindedquality assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:335–41.68. ter Riet G, Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Acupunctureand chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis.J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1191–9.69. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, Ter Riet G. Clinical trialsof homeopathy. BMJ 1991;302:316–32.70. Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ,Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Spinal manipulationand mobilisation for back and neck pain: ablinded review. BMJ 1991;303:1298–303.71. van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ,Scholten RJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM. The efficacy ofnon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs forshoulder complaints. J Clin Epidemiol1995;48:691–704.72. de Vet HC, de Bie RA, van der Heijden GJ,Verhagen AP, Sijpkes P, Knipschild PG. Systematicreviews on the basis of methodologic criteria.Physiotherapy 1997;83:284–9.73. Bours GJ, Ketelaars CA, Frederiks CM, Abu SaadHH, Wouters EF. The effects of aftercare onchronic patients and frail elderly patients whendischarged from hospital: a systematic review.J Adv Nurs 1998;27:1076–86.74. Kleijnen J, Riet ter G, Knipschild P. Vitamine C enverkoudheid. Overzicht van een megadosisliteratuur. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1989;133:1535.75. Riet ter G, Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. De metaanalyseals review-methode [De effectiviteit vanacupunctuur]. Huisarts en Wetenschap 1989;32:176–81.76. Antczak AA, Tang J, Chalmers TC. Qualityassessment of randomized control trials in dentalresearch 1. Methods. J Periodontal Res 1986;21:305–14.77. Nicolucci A, Grilli R, Alexanian A, Apolone G,Torri V, Liberati A. Quality, evolution, and clinicalimplications of randomized, controlled trials onthe treatment of lung cancer. JAMA 1989;262:2101–7.78. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides tothe medical literature. II. How to use an articleabout therapy or prevention. B. What were theresults and will they help me in caring for mypatients? Evidence-based Medicine WorkingGroup. JAMA 1994;271:59–63.79. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides tothe medical literature. II. How to use an articleabout therapy or prevention. A. Are the results ofthe study valid? Evidence-based Medicine WorkingGroup. JAMA 1993;270:2598–601.80. Department of Clinical Epidemiology andBiostatistics, McMaster University Health SciencesCentre. How to read clinical journals. V. Todistinguish useful from useless or even harmfultherapy. CMAJ 1981;124:1156–62.81. Anders JF, Jacobson RM, Poland GA, Jacobsen SJ,Wollan PC. Secondary failure rates of measlesvaccines: a meta-analysis of published studies.Pediatr Infect Dis J 1996;15:62–6.82. Baker DW, Jones R, Hodges J, Massie BM,Konstam MA, Rose EA. Management of heartfailure. III. The role of revascularization in thetreatment of patients with moderate or severe leftventricular systolic dysfunction. JAMA1994;272:1528–34.97© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.
Page 1 and 2:
Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 3 and 4:
Evaluating non-randomisedinterventi
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
Evaluation of checklists and scales
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
32TABLE 8 Details of top 60 quality
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
38TABLE 10 Other domains: reporting
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Use of quality assessment in system
Page 58 and 59: Use of quality assessment in system
Page 60 and 61: Use of quality assessment in system
Page 62 and 63: Empirical estimates of bias associa
Page 76 and 77: Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 82 and 83: 70TABLE 22 Comparison of concurrent
Page 86 and 87: 74TABLE 26 Comparison of methods of
Page 92 and 93: 80TABLE 33 Hypothetical example dem
Page 94 and 95: 82TABLE 34 Hypothetical example dem
Page 100 and 101: Discussion and conclusions88histori
Page 102 and 103: Discussion and conclusions90For exa
Page 104 and 105: Discussion and conclusionsNon-rando
Page 107: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 111 and 112: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 121: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 124 and 125: Appendix 1data)) or (non-random$ or
Page 126 and 127: Appendix 2AuthorYearENDARESourcePub
Page 128 and 129: Appendix 2Author:Accession No:Endno
Page 130 and 131: Appendix 20 0 00Additional outcomes
Page 132 and 133: Appendix 2Endnote NoWas CMA conside
Page 134 and 135: 122AuthorOrigin aModified toolTool
Page 148 and 149: Appendix 4136DuRant, 1994 99The typ
Page 155 and 156: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 157 and 158: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
Page 188 and 189:
Health Technology Assessment Progra
Page 190:
Health Technology Assessment Progra
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?