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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

164Review Method of incorporating Results of quality investigationquality into synthesisRey, 1997 346 Qualitative No conclusive results available because of poor study quality. Quality improved in the more recent studies.Authors conclude that electroconvulsive therapy in the young is similar in effectiveness and side-effects to its usein adultsRiben, 1994 270 Qualitative Effect of quality on results was discussed. For education: strong/moderate studies indicate no relationshipbetween on-site education and sanitation level. For inspections: strong studies indicate evidence not conclusiveRichard, 1997 224 Qualitative Inconclusive evidence found to support/refute the value of FU surveillance programmes owing to lack of largeand well-designed studiesRied, 1994 347 Quantitative Zero-order correlation (Pearson’s product moment r) was not statistically significant for study ES and qualityCorrelation analysisscore (–0.12), indicating no effect of quality. However, power to detect a statistically significant correlation waslowRobert, 1997 379 Not consideredRowe, 1997 348 Quantitative No significant relationship between quality score and size of treatment effect was found (Pearson’s correlationCorrelation analysis coefficient, r = –0.22, p = 0.33)Saint, 1998 288 Not consideredSalisbury, 1997 198 Qualitative Comment on methodological quality provided in table along with individual study results. Authors conclude thatthere is evidence of benefit from the intervention but that this is based on studies that are methodologicallyweakSchmidt-Nowara,1995 239Not consideredSchoemaker, 1997 358 QualitativeOnly high-quality studies were considered in the review (6/33). Methodological shortcomings and lack of controlfor potential confounders meant that the prognostic value of early intervention could not be estimatedSellers, 1997 353 Quantitative Use of matching led to larger ES for weight and systolic and diastolic blood pressure; use of covariate adjustmentEach coded study characteristic was produced smaller ES for smoking and systolic blood pressure. Longer FU time was associated with larger ES forinvestigated (including sample size, matching, cholesterol, weight and CHD riskresponse rate, covariate adjustment, studysetting)Selley, 1997 354 Not consideredSimons, 1996 356 Quantitative Only high-quality studies included in the meta-analysis (all RCTs ). Summary effect size was larger when all RCTs(including low-quality ones) were includedAppendix 7continued
© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.Review Method of incorporating Results of quality investigationquality into synthesisSmeenk, 1998 359 Qualitative Narrative summary of study results and their quality scores was provided. RCTs and NRS appeared todemonstrate similar effects. Effectiveness of the intervention remains unclear.Snowdon, 1997 400 Qualitative Quality issues discusses narratively. Authors conclude there is no evidence of benefit and that most of the studieswere methodologically flawedSolomon, 1997 366 Qualitative Quality issues discussed alongside results of each study. Some indication of differences between care providerswas found, but important methodological limitations remainedSullivan, 1995 290 Not consideredTalley, 1996 401 Qualitative The methodological quality of the studies was discussed in detail; only one study was deemed of acceptablequality; however, its results were not felt to be generalisableTangkanakul, 1997 372 QualitativeMethodological quality discussed separately from study results. Some indication of benefit for the interventionwas found, but too few RCTs and too many problems with NRS to make strong recommendationster Riet, 1990 68 Qualitative Methodological issues were discussed and study results (positive or negative) were examined in relation to thequality of the studies. The authors conclude that no high-quality studies exist and no definitive conclusions cantherefore be reached regarding efficacy.Theis, 1997 373 Qualitative Some quality issues discussed. Methodological problems mean that available studies provide only very limitedcomparative data on the benefits of different treatment protocolsThomas, 1995 375 Qualitative Comment was made on poor methodological quality of included studies, making definitive conclusions impossibleTowler, 1998 235 Qualitative Design issues discussed narratively. Quality of design generally high. Studies examined according to designvan Balkom, 1997 384 QuantitativeMagnitude of effect size was not significantly associated with quality score.Correlation between quality score and effect Multivariate analysis indicated that eight independent variables including quality score and confounding variablessize accounted for 15% of the variance for panic (F = 0.9; df = 8,42; p = 0.53), and 21% for agoraphobia (F = 2.81;Multiple regression analysis using eight df = 8,87; p = 0.008). In the Discussion section, the authors further state that total quality score was onlyvariables: % of drop-outs, male/female weakly correlated with outcomeratio, duration of illness, age at onset, ageat start of trial, type of diagnosis, % ofpatients with panic disorder alone and thetotal quality scoreVerhagen, 1997 304 Qualitative The methodological quality and results of the studies were discussed separately. Authors conclude that aconclusion regarding efficacy cannot be drawn owing to poor methodological qualityVickers, 1996 201 Qualitative Methodological quality of the studies was discussed in some detail. The authors conclude that the intervention iseffective but acknowledge that methodological flaws may lead some readers to conclude that there is insufficientevidencecontinuedHealth Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27165
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:
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 175: © 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?