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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

References100practice. Chicago, IL: American MedicalAssociation Press; 2002. pp. 84–100.140. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medicalresearch. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.141. Breslow NE, Day NE, editors. Statistical methodsin cancer research. Analysis of case control studies.Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications; 1980.142. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancerresearch. Design and analysis of cohort studies.Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications; 1987.143. Altman DG. Adjustment for covariate imbalance.In Armitage P, Colton T, editors. Encyclopedia ofbiostatistics. Chichester: Wiley; 1998. pp. 1005–7.144. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of theanalysis of data from retrospective studies ofdisease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22:719–48.145. Rosenbaum PR. Observational studies. New York:Springer; 1995.146. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of thepropensity score in observational studies for causaleffects. Biometrica 1983;70:41–55.147. D’Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for biasreduction in the comparison of a treatment to anon-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265–81.148. Robins J, Greenland S, Breslow NE. A generalestimator for the variance of the Mantel–Haenszelodds ratio. Am J Epidemiol 1986;124:719–23.149. Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology. Boston, MA:Little Brown; 1986.150. Leon DA. Failed or misleading adjustment forconfounding. Lancet 1993;342:479–81.151. Robinson LD, Jewell NP. Some surprising resultsabout covariate adjustment in logistic-regressionmodels. Int Stat Rev 1991;59:227–40.152. Rosenbaum PR. Discussing hidden bias inobservational studies. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:901–5.153. Cochran WG. The effectiveness of adjustment bysubclassification in removing bias in observationalstudies. Biometrics 1968;24:295–313.154. Brenner H, Blettner M. Controlling for continuousconfounders in epidemiologic research.Epidemiology 1997;8:429–34.155. Brenner H. A potential pitfall in control ofcovariates in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology1997;9:68–71.156. Davey Smith G, Phillips A. Declaringindependence: why we should be cautious.J Epidemiol Community Health 1990;44:257–8.157. Greenland S. The effect of misclassification in thepresence of covariates. Am J Epidemiol1980;112:564–9.158. Caroll RJ. Covariance analysis in generalizedlinear measurement error models. Stat Med1989;8:1075–93.159. Savitz DA, Baron AE. Estimating and correctingfor confounder misclassification. Am J Epidemiol1989;129:1062–71.160. Knuiman MW, Divitini ML, Buzas JS, FitzgeraldPEB. Adjustment for regression dilution inepidemiological regression analyses. Ann Epidemiol1998;8:56–63.161. Rosner B, Spiegelman D, Willet WC. Correction oflogistic regression relative risk estimates andconfidence intervals for measurement error: thecase of multiple covariates measured with error.Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:734–45.162. Greenland S, Robins JM. Confounding andmisclassification. Am J Epidemiol 1985;122:495–506.163. Prentice RL. Design issues in cohort studies. StatMethods Med Res 1995;4:273–92.164. Gail MH, Wieand S, Piantadosi S. Biased estimatesof treatment effect in randomized experimentswith nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates.Biometrika 1984;71:431–44.165. Ford I, Norrie J. The role of covariates inestimating treatment effects and risk in long-termclinical trials. Stat Med 2002;21:2899–908.166. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logisticregression. New York: Wiley; 1989.167. Bancroft TA. Analysis and inference forincompletely specified models involving the use ofpreliminary tests of significance. Biometrics1964;20:247–439.168. Mickey RM, Greenland S. The impact ofconfounder selection criteria on effect estimation.Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:125–37.169. Maldonado G, Greenland S. Simulation study ofconfounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol1993;138:923–36.170. Drake C. Effects of misspecification of thepropensity score on estimators of treatment effect.Biometrics 1993;49:1231–6.171. Charpentier PA, Bogardus ST, Inouye SK. Analgorithm for prospective individual matching in anon-randomized clinical trial. J Clin Epidemiol2001;54:1166–73.172. Johnston SC. Identifying confounding byindication through blinded prospective review. AmJ Epidemiol 2001;154:276–84.173. Phillips AN, Davey Smith G. The design ofprospective epidemiological studies: more subjectsor better measurements? J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1203–11.
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27174. Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Lin D, Weiss NS,Siscovick DS, Rosendaal FR, et al. Assessment andcontrol for confounding by indication inobservational studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999;47:749–54.175. Khan KS, ter Riet, G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ,Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews ofresearch on effectiveness. CRD Report No. 4.Update. York: University of York; 2001.176. Audet N, Gagnon R, Ladouceur R, Marcil M. Howeffective is the teaching of critical analysis ofscientific publications? Review of studies and theirmethodological quality. CMAJ 1993;148:945–52.177. Campos-Outcalt D, Senf J, Watkins AJ, Bastacky S.The effects of medical school curricula, faculty rolemodels, and biomedical research support onchoice of generalist physician careers: a review andquality assessment of the literature. Acad Med1995;70:611–19.178. Carter J, Verhoef MJ. Efficacy of self-help andalternative treatments of premenstrual syndrome.Womens Health Issues 1994;4:130–7.179. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group.Assessment of methodological quality of includedtrials. In The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford:Update Software; 2002.180. Cuddy PG, Elenbaas RM, Elenbaas JK. Evaluatingthe medical literature. Part I: abstract, introduction,methods. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:549–55.181. Gardner MJ, Machin D, Campbell MJ. Use ofcheck lists in assessing the statistical content ofmedical studies. BMJ 1986;292:810–2.182. Glantz JC, McNanley TJ. Active management oflabor: a meta-analysis of cesarean delivery rates fordystocia in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1997;52:497–505.183. Greenhalgh T. Assessing the methodologicalquality of published papers. BMJ 1997;315:305–8.184. Gurman A, Kniskern D. Research on marital andfamily therapy: progress, perspective and prospect.In Garfield S, Bergin A, editors. Handbook ofpsychotherapy and behavior change: an empiricalanalysis. New York: Wiley; 1978. pp. 817–901.185. Cole MG, Primeau F, McCusker J. Effectiveness ofinterventions to prevent delirium in hospitalizedpatients: A systematic review. CMAJ 1996;155:1263–8.186. Kay EJ, Locker D. Is dental health educationeffective? A systematic review of current evidence.Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1996;24:231–5.187. Kreulen CM, Creugers NH, Meijering AC. Metaanalysisof anterior veneer restorations in clinicalstudies. J Dent 1998;26:345–53.188. Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Koelman TW,Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC. Effects of intensity ofrehabilitation after stroke. A research synthesis.Stroke 1997;28:1550–6.189. Lee TM, Chan CC, Paterson JG, Janzen HL,Blashko CA. Spectral properties of phototherapyfor seasonal affective disorder: a meta-analysis.Acta Psychiatr Scand 1997;96:117–21.190. Levine J. Trial Assessment Procedure Scale (TAPS).Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and HumanServices, Public Health Service, Alcohol, DrugAbuse and Mental Health Administration,National Institute of Mental Health; 1980.191. MacMillan HL, MacMillan JH, Offord DR, GriffithDL, MacMillan A. Primary prevention of childphysical abuse and neglect: a critical review. Part 1.J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1994;35:835–56.192. Maziak DE, Meade MO, Todd TR. The timing oftracheotomy: a systematic review. Chest 1998;114:605–9.193. Meijman F, Melker de RA. The extent of interandintra-reviewer agreement on the classificationand assessment of designs of single-practiceresearch. Fam Pract 1995;12:93–7.194. Barley ZA. Assessment of quality of studies forinclusion in meta-analyses. Doctoral dissertation,University of Colorado; 1989. Dissertation AbstractsInternational 1989;50A:575.195. Moncrieff J, Drummond DC. The quality ofalcohol treatment research: an examination ofinfluential controlled trials and development of aquality rating system. Addiction 1998;93:811–23.196. Morley JA, Finney JW, Monahan SC, Floyd AS.Alcoholism treatment outcome studies,1980–1992: methodological characteristics andquality. Addict Behav 1996;21:429–43.197. Mulrow CD, Lichtenstein MJ. Blood glucose anddiabetic retinopathy: a critical appraisal of newevidence. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1:73–7.198. Salisbury C. What is the impact of different modelsof care on patients’ quality of life, psychologicalwell-being or motivation? Appropriate and costeffective models of service delivery in palliativecare: report March 1996–July 1997. Bristol:Division of Primary Health Care, University ofBristol; 1997.199. Schechter MT, Leblanc FE, Lawrence VA. Criticalappraisal of published research. In Mulder D,McPeek B, Troidl H, Spitzer W, McKneally M,Weschler A, editors. Principles and practice ofresearch: strategy for surgical investigators. 2nded. New York: Springer; 1991. pp. 81–7.200. Sheldon TA, Song F, Davey Smith G. Criticalappraisal of the medical literature: how to assesswhether health-care interventions do more harmthan good. In Drummond MF, Maynard A,Wells N, editors. Purchasing and providing cost101© 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:
Page 60 and 61:
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 111: 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 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?