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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

132AuthorOrigin aModified toolTool purpose bStudy designscovered cType of tool d(weighting)Items justified?Items by design?No. of itemsTool validity eInter-raterreliability fIntra-raterreliability fTest-retest fInternalconsistency fTime to completeUsed in otherreviews?Review referencenumberAppendix 3Sackett, 1989 126 , 1985 349 L 4 y 350, 351Salisbury, 1997 198 n 7 RCTs, descriptive studies; c n n 45 na na na na na n nmethodological studiesSchechter, 1991 199 n 3 CCT c n n 30 na na na na na n nSchmid, 1991 121 X Not a QA tool y 352Sellers, 1997 353 n 7 RCTs, NRS c n n 13 na na na na na n nSelley, 1997 354 n 7 NRS, Coh s n n 9 na na na na na n nShaver, 1989 355 n 7 RCTs, Quasi-Exp, Pre/Post c n n 162 na 94% a na na na n nShay, 1972 90 n 3 Any c n n 25 Fa high na na na n nSheldon, 1993 200 n 3 RCTs, Quasi-Exp, Coh, c n n 36 na na na na na n nCCS, CSSimons, 1996 356 n 7 RCTs, CCTs s e n n 9 na 85% a na na na n nSlavin, 1986 357 X Not a QA tool y 358Smeenk, 1998 359 n 7 RCTs, CCTs s u n n 34 na 90.8% a na na na n nSmith, 1991 360 n 7 Exp, Non-Exp s e n n 22 na na na na na n ySmith, 1977 361 X Not a QA tool y 362Smith, 1988 125 X Not a QA tool y 363Smith, 1980 364 n 7 RCTs, CCTs c n n 21 na 92% a na na na n nNRSolomon, 1993 365 m Evans and Pollock, 2 RCTs, NRS; case studies s n n 10 na 0.69 K 0.67 K na na n n1985 407Solomon, 1997 366 n 7 RCTs, Coh; survey c n y 11 na na na na na n ncontinued
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.AuthorOrigin aModified toolTool purpose bStudy designscovered cType of tool d(weighting)Spitzer, 1990 105 n 7 RCTs, Coh; CCS; CS; c n n 20 na na na na na n y 97uncontrolled series;descriptive studiesStevens, 1994 367 L US Task Force, 4 y 3681989 378Stock, 1991 369 n 7 NRS, CCS, cross-sectional c n n 7 na na na na na n nstudies; longitudinal CohSuydam, 1968 370 n 3 Exp s e n n 9 na Coefficients 0.91, Coefficients na na n y 3710.94; 0.78 r : 371 0.57, 0.77Talley, 1993 106 n 7 RCTs, CTs c n n 29 na na na na na n nTangkanakul, 1997 372 n Could be from 7 RCTs, NRS c n y 10 na na na na na n nCochrane?ter Riet, 1990 68 n 7 RCTs, NRS s u n n 18 na na na na na n yTheis, 1997 373 n 7 RCTs, comparison studies c n n 5 na na na na na n nThomas, 1991 374 X Not a QA tool y 325Thomas, 1995 375 n 7 RCTs, NRS s u n n 10 na na na na na n nThomas 65 n 7 CCTs, Coh, CCS, B/A, CS c n n 21 na na na na na n nTuckman, 1990 376 n 6? Quantitative research s n n 30 na na na na na n nUS Task Force, 1996, 377 L 379–1989 378 383van Balkom, 1997 384 m Chalmers, 1981 51 7 RCTs, NRS s e n n 14? na na na na na n nNRvan Dalen, 1958 385 n 1/6 Exp c n y 113 na na na na na n nvan der Windt, 1995 71 m Koes, 1991 70 7 RCTs, s u n n 17 na 90% a na na na n y 73Items justified?Items by design?No. of itemsTool validity eInter-raterreliability fIntra-raterreliability fTest-retest fInternalconsistency fTime to completeUsed in otherreviews?Review referencenumbercontinuedHealth Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27133
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:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
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 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
70TABLE 22 Comparison of concurrent
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
74TABLE 26 Comparison of methods of
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
80TABLE 33 Hypothetical example dem
Page 94 and 95: 82TABLE 34 Hypothetical example dem
Page 96 and 97: Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 98 and 99: Empirical evaluation of the ability
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 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 185: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 188 and 189: Health Technology Assessment Progra
Page 190: Health Technology Assessment Progra
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?