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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References9883. Cameron I, Crotty M, Currie C, Finnegan T,Gillespie L, Gillespie W, et al. Geriatricrehabilitation following fractures in older people:a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(2).84. Cho MK, Bero LA. Instruments for assessing thequality of drug studies published in the medicalliterature. JAMA 1994;272:101–4.85. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating achecklist for the assessment of the methodologicalquality both of randomised and non-randomisedstudies of health care interventions. J EpidemiolCommun Health 1998;52:377–84.86. Zaza S, Wright-de Aguero LK, Briss PA, TrumanBI, Hopkins DP, Hennessy MH, et al. Datacollection instrument and procedure for systematicreviews in the ‘Guide to Community PreventiveServices’. Am J Prev Med 2000;18:44–74.87. Miller WR, Brown JM, Simpson TL. What works?A methodological analysis of the alcohol treatmentoutcome literature. In Hester RK, Miller WR,editors. Handbook of alcoholism treatmentapproaches: effective alternatives. Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon; 1995. pp. 12–44.88. Bass JL, Christoffel KK, Widome M, Boyle W,Scheidt P, Stanwick R, et al. Childhood injuryprevention counseling in primary care settings: acritical review of the literature. Pediatrics 1993;92:544–50.89. Duffy ME. A research appraisal checklist forevaluating nursing research reports. Nurs HealthCare 1985;6:538–47.90. Shay CB, Zimmermann WS. The factorial validityof a rating scale for the evaluation of researcharticles. Educ Psychol Meas 1972;32:453–7.91. Wells-Parker E, Bangert-Drowns R. Meta-analysisof research on DUI remedial interventions. DrugsAlcohol Driving 1990;6:147–60.92. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O’Rourke K, McGeer AJ,L’Abbe KA. Incorporating variations in the qualityof individual randomized trials into meta analysis.J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:255–65.93. Melchart D, Linde K, Worku F, Bauer R, WagnerH. Immunomodulation with Echinacea – asystematic review of controlled clinical trials.Phytomedicine 1994;1:245–54.94. Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposalfor structured reporting of randomised controlledtrials. JAMA 1994;272:1926–31.95. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N,Melchart D, Jonas WB. Impact of study quality onoutcome in placebo-controlled trials ofhomeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:631–6.96. de Oliveira IR, Dardennes RM, Amorim ES,Diquet B, de Sena EP, Moreira EC, et al. Is there arelationship between antipsychotic blood levelsand their clinical efficacy? An analysis of studiesdesign and methodology. Fundam Clin Pharmacol1995;9:488–502.97. Coleridge Smith P. The management of chronicvenous disorders of the leg: an evidence-basedreport of an International Task Force. Phlebology1999;14:3–19.98. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp R. Reading themedical literature. Basic and clinical biostatistics.Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1990.pp. 264–76.99. DuRant RH. Checklist for the evaluation ofresearch articles. J Adolesc Health 1994;15:4–8.100. Friedenreich CM. Methods for pooled analyses ofepidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 1993;4:295–302.101. Gordis L, Kleinman JC, Klerman LV, Mullen PD,Paneth N. Criteria for evaluating evidenceregarding the effectiveness of prenatalinterventions. In Merkatz IR, Thompson JE,editors. New perspectives on prenatal care. NewYork: Elsevier; 1990. pp. 31–8.102. Hadorn DC, Baker D, Hodges JS, Hicks N. Ratingthe quality of evidence for clinical practiceguidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:749–54.103. Wilson A, Henry DA. Meta-analysis. Part 2.Assessing the quality of published meta-analyses.Med J Aust 1992;156:173–87.104. Bracken MB. Reporting observational studies. Br JObstet Gynaecol 1989;96:383–8.105. Spitzer WO, Lawrence V, Dales R, Hill G, ArcherMC, Clarck P, et al. Links between passive smokingand disease; a best-evidence synthesis. Clin InvestMed 1990;13:17–42.106. Talley NJ, Nyren O, Drossman DA. The irritablebowel syndrome: toward optimal design ofcontrolled treatment trials. Gastroenterology Int1993;6:189–211.107. Fowkes FG, Fulton PM. Critical appraisal ofpublished research. Introductory guidelines. BMJ1991;302:1136–40.108. Weintraub M. How to critically assess clinical drugtrials. Drug Ther 1982;12:131–48.109. Cowley DE. Prostheses for primary total hipreplacement. A critical appraisal of the literature.Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995;11:770–8.110. Vickers A. Critical appraisal: how to read a clinicalresearch paper. Complement Ther Med 1995;3:158–66.111. Reisch J, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluationof therapeutic studies. Pediatrics 1989;84:815–27.112. Downs, Black N. Systematic review of the literatureon the effectiveness of surgery for stressincontinence for women. London: London Schoolof Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 1996.
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27113. Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect ofarterial revascularisation on survival: a systematicreview of studies comparing bilateral and singleinternal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001;358:870–5.114. Tyson JE, Furzan JA, Reisch JS, Mize SG. Anevaluation of the quality of therapeutic studies inperinatal medicine. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:99–102.115. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Doesthe inclusion of grey literature influence estimatesof intervention effectiveness reported in metaanalyses?Lancet 2000;356:1228–31.116. Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad A. The importance ofquality of primary studies in producing unbiasedsystematic reviews. Arch Intern Med1996;156:661–6.117. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I,Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis ofobservational studies in epidemiology: a proposalfor reporting. Meta-analysis of ObservationalStudies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA2000;283:2008–12.118. Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. CochraneReviewers Handbook 4.1.5 [updated April 2002].In The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: UpdateSoftware; 2002.119. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Undertaking systematic reviews of research oneffectiveness. CRD Report No. 4. York: Universityof York, 1996.120. L’Abbe KA, Detsky AS, O’Rourke KF. Meta-analysisin clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:224–33.121. Schmid JE, Koch GC, LaVange LM. An overviewof statistical issues and methods of meta-analysis.J Biopharm Stat 1991;1:103–20.122. Slavin RE. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligentalternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:9–18.123. Ganong LH. Integrative reviews of nursingresearch. Res Nurs Health 1987;10:1–11.124. Gartland JJ. Orthopaedic clinical research:deficiencies in experimental design anddeterminations of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am1988;70:309–15.125. Smith TMF, Sugden RA. Sampling and assignmentmechanisms in experiments, surveys andobservational studies. Int Stat Rev 1988;56:165–80.126. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinicalrecommendations on the use of antithromboticagents. Chest 1989;95:2s–4s.127. Gyorkos TW, Tannenbaum TN, Abrahamowicz M,Oxman AD, Scott EA, Millson ME, et al. Anapproach to the development of practiceguidelines for community health interventions.Can J Public Health 1994;85:s8–s13.128. Oakley A, Fullerton D, Holland J, Arnold S,Hickey D, Kelley P, et al. SSRU database project:reviews of effectiveness: HIV prevention andsexual health education interventions. London:University of London, Social Science ResearchUnit; 1994.129. Wells-Parker E, Bangert-Drowns R, McMillen R,Williams M. Final results from a meta-analysis ofremedial interventions with drink/drive offenders.Addiction 1995;90:907–26.130. Cheek CM, Black NA, Devlin HB, Kingsnorth AN,Taylor RS, Watkin DF. Groin hernia surgery: asystematic review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1998;80:S1–S80.131. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, MoherM, Jones A, et al. Assessing the quality of reportsof randomised trials: implications for the conductof meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(12).132. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group.The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomisedtrial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, orneither among 19435 patients with ischaemicstroke. Lancet 1997;349:1569–81.133. European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ CollaborativeGroup. Randomised trial of endarterectomy forrecently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final resultsof the MRC European Cartoid Surgery Trial(ECST). Lancet 1998;351:1379–87.134. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to thebootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993.135. North American Symptomatic CarotidEndarterectomy Trial (NASCET) investigators.Clinical alert: benefit of carotid endarterectomyfor patients with high-grade stenosis of theinternal carotid artery. National Institute ofNeurological Disorders and Stroke, Stroke andTrauma Division. Stroke 1991;22:816–17.136. Iezzoni LI. Risk adjustment for measurementhealthcare outcomes. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: HealthAdministration Press; 1997.137. Sowden AJ, Deeks J, Sheldon TA. Volume andoutcome in coronary artery bypass graft surgery:true relationship or artefact? BMJ1995;311:151–5.138. Naylor CD, Guyatt GH. Therapy and harm –outcomes of health services. In Guyatt GH,Rennie D, editors. Users’ guides to the medicalliterature – a manual for evidence-based clinicalpractice. Chicago, IL: American MedicalAssociation Press; 2002. pp. 233–46.139. Levine M, Haslam D, Walter S, Cumming R,Lee H, Haines T, et al. Harm. In Guyatt GH,Rennie D, editors. Users’ guides to the medicalliterature – a manual for evidence-based clinical99© 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 and 108: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 109: 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 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?