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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

160Review Method of incorporating Results of quality investigationquality into synthesisKleijnen, 1991 69 Qualitative Concentrated on results of trials with the best methodological quality. Evidence found to be largely positive,especially in trials of lower qualityKrause, 1998 306 Qualitative Only higher scoring studies were included. A ‘best’ estimate of effectiveness was derived from highest rankingstudies, then a range of probable estimates of effectiveness was derived from the other studies. Authors concludethat there is a suggestion of effectiveness, but methodological limitations make stronger conclusions difficultKreulen, 1998 187 Qualitative Methodological characteristics were discussed narratively; authors conclude that studies were well designed butthat methodological characteristics could be improvedKrywanio, 1994 363 Quantitative:various No significant correlation between ES and quality score regardless of mean birthweight, i.e. the interventionCorrelation analysis of ES and quality score. groups in high-quality studies did not gain more/less than those in lower quality studies.Weighting by sample size, quality score and In one mean birth weight subgroup, only weighting by quality score had an impact on ES [reduced from 1.54mean birth weight in turn(95% CI: 1.22 to 1.86) to 1.37]. Authors comment that this is indicative of poorer quality studies with larger ES.For the other subgroup, only weighting by sample size impacted on ES [reduced from 0.51 (95% CI: 0.39 to0.63) to 0.42], indicating that studies in this group were of higher qualityKulik, 1990 308 Quantitative Random assignment and teacher effects (same or different teachers teaching experimental and control groups)Subgroup analyses according to six quality made little difference to ES or SE. Use of national standardised tests produced lower ESs than locally developedcriteria, further subdivided by teaching tests. Subjectively scored criterion tests produced lower ES in the PSI group compared with objective, machineapproach,i.e. ‘Keller’s Personalised System scoreable exams, but made little difference to the LFM group. Where control groups received the same amountof Instruction’ (largely self-directed learning), of feedback as the intervention groups, the effect size was found to be smaller than where they receivedor Bloom’s ‘Learning for Mastery’standard feedback(teacher-presented and controlled)Kwakkel, 1997 188 Qualitative Methodological limitations of studies were mentioned, and considered as major confounding factors in theconclusionsLee, 1994 312 Qualitative Methodological characteristics discussed separately from results of individual studies; few high-quality studieswere identified; however, some benefits from the interventions were reportedLee, 1997 189 Not consideredLijesen, 1995 303 Qualitative NRS all scored
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.Review Method of incorporating Results of quality investigationquality into synthesisLittenberg, 1998 316 Qualitative Quality and results of each study were discussed individually, starting with highest scoring studies, according touse of control group. Overall quality stated to be poor, but tentative conclusions were drawn from the resultsLoblaw, 1998 223 Qualitative Summary of level of evidence available for each procedure/recommendation. Few high-quality papers were foundLong, 1995 380 Qualitative Studies discussed in terms of level of evidence and grading of recommendations. Authors conclude that a greaterpercentage of studies using indirect positioning as an intervention had stronger evidence to support theinterventions than studies with direct positioning as the intervention. Sackett’s framework should not be the solemethod of treatment evaluation because the infant’s medical status needs to be considered prior toimplementing a treatment strategyLucassen, 1998 286 Quantitative Quality score and effect measure were not correlated (r = –0.02; p = 0.92)Correlation analysis between quality scoreand effectLyons, 1991 319 Quantitative Studies with high internal validity demonstrated larger pooled effect size (ES 1.138, SD 1.119) compared withSubgroup analysis according to quality medium (ES 0.818, SD 0.778) or low (ES 0.811, SD 0.670) validity studies. The low-validity comparison is(high/medium/low) significantly different from the medium and high comparisons (p < 0.05).MacLehose, 2000 26 Quantitative Neither total quality nor any component of the quality score was significantly associated with effect sizeCorrelation analysis to investigate impact ofindividual components of the quality scoreMacMillan, 1994 396 Qualitative Some methodological limitations and their implications on study results were discussed narratively. The impacton the conclusions of the review is not clearMacMillan, 1994 191 Qualitative Methodological limitations were discussed narratively. Study outcomes were also ranked by methodologicalscore. There does not appear to be a great deal of difference in effect according to qualityMargolis, 1995 322 Qualitative Some narrative discussion of quality was provided. Methodological weaknesses make any conclusions regardingeffectiveness impossibleMarrs, 1995 323 Quantitative No-treatment control group led to higher ES than where placebo control used. Researcher contact with subjectsSubgroup analyses according to individual had little impact on ES, and unpublished studies produced slightly higher ES than published, as did randomisedquality criteriacompared with non-randomised studies. A significant correlation was also found between subject retention instudy and ES (r = 0.268)Massy, 1995 324 Quantitative In each case the results of the regression models were not substantively different (data not presented)Regression model weighted by inversevariance and study quality. Results comparedwith weighting by inverse variance alone,sample size and unweighted modelsMathews, 1996 397 Qualitative Studies discussed narratively according to grade (only grades A or B included). Methodological weaknesses makeit difficult to assess the relative importance of each interventioncontinuedHealth Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27161
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:
Page 98 and 99:
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:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
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 151 and 152: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 155 and 156: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 171: © 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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?