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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

166Review Method of incorporating Results of quality investigationquality into synthesisVickers, 1994 386 Qualitative Some methodological items were discussed in the text and the impact of any limitations on the results of someof the individual studies were discussed. Most of the studies reviewed indicated favourable effects fromhypnotherapy, despite the lack of good control groupsVillalobos, 1998 402 Quantitative Prospective studies found no effect from intervention, whereas retrospective studies (and all studies combined)Sensitivity analyses according to prospective/ suggested that intervention was effectiveretrospective design (prospective studiesmay all be RCTs – not fully clear)Watt, 1998 221 Qualitative All studies supported the use of the intervention in question; results usually statistically or clinically significant, butinconclusive because of small sample size or methodological biasWells-Parker, Quantitative Methodological factors jointly accounted for significant variance (R 2 = 14; p < 0.01). Log (sample size) proved to1995 129 Regression analysis used to investigate be the strongest predictor of ES (β = –0.27; t = 1.29, p = 0.21)impact of methodological factors (including Lower quality studies demonstrated larger ES with larger SDs than high-quality studies [e.g. high-quality (score‘grouping’ quality, source of ES estimate, 5), ES 0.08, SD 0.13; low-quality (score 6), ES 0.25, SD 0.36]. Using 5.0 or 5.5 as the threshold for ‘highpurity or definition of outcome measure quality’ had little impact on the resultsand sample size)The funnel plot indicated that poorer methodological quality was associated with greater variation in effect sizeVarious quality score thresholds were usedas inclusion criteria for the meta-analysisVisual plotWingood, 1996 202 Qualitative Study weaknesses discussed, but more detailed impact of this on results not made. All studies seem to producepositive effects on knowledge and/or behaviour. Authors suggest RCTs more likely to give positive effects, butlittle evidence of this, given only two NRSWitlin, 1998 381 Qualitative Both level I and II evidence supported the use of magnesium sulphate for seizure prophylaxis in women withsevere pre-eclampsiaWright, 1995 203 Qualitative Results of individual studies were discussed with their design and quality. Overall studies were of insufficientquality to allow any strong conclusions to be made. Authors did not state that they used QA, but data extractionsheet covers major quality issues and is very similar to one by Sheldon. May be a modified versionAppendix 7ES, effect size; df, degrees of freedom; RD, risk difference.
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27Appendix 8Descriptions of the IST and ECSTThe International Stroke Trial(IST) 132Description of the trialThe IST investigated the safety and efficacy ofaspirin and heparin on the outcome of ischaemicstroke. Between January 1991 and May 1996,19,435 patients with suspected acute ischaemicstroke entering 467 hospitals in 36 countries werecentrally randomised using a minimisationalgorithm within 48 h of stroke onset. Using a2 × 2 factorial design, half of the patients wereallocated ‘heparin’ and half ‘avoid heparin’, whilstsimultaneously half were allocated ‘aspirin’ andhalf ‘avoid aspirin’. Aspirin was prescribed at300 mg per day for 14 days (or the duration ofhospital stay). At discharge, clinicians wereencouraged to prescribe all patients long-termaspirin. Among patients allocated heparin,subcutaneous heparin was administered for14 days at one of two randomly allocated doses:5000 IU twice daily (low dose) and 12,500 IUtwice daily (medium dose). All analyses presentedbelow combine these two dose groups.The primary outcomes were death within 14 daysand death or dependency at 6 months. Outcomedata were 99.99% complete for 14-day outcomeand 99.2% complete for 6-month outcome. Interms of compliance, low-dose heparin wasreceived throughout the scheduled treatment by90% and medium-dose heparin by 88% of thoseallocated to it; 94% of those allocated to ‘avoidheparin’ did not receive it. Aspirin was takenthroughout the scheduled treatment period by92% allocated to receive it; 93% of those allocatedto avoid it did not receive it.In both aspirin- and heparin-allocated patientsthere were non-significantly fewer deaths within14 days (9.0% heparin versus 9.3% no heparin;9.0% aspirin versus 9.4% no aspirin). At 6 monthsthere was a non-significant trend towards a smallerpercentage of aspirin group being dead ordependent [62 versus 63%, 2p = 0.07; a differenceof 13 (SD 7) per 1000]. After adjustment forbaseline stroke severity, the benefit from aspirinwas significant [14 events prevented per 1000patients (SD 6), 2p = 0.03]. There was nointeraction between aspirin and heparin in themain outcomes.Baseline characteristics in the ISTThe distribution of 15 baseline characteristicsassociated with prognosis following stroke isreported in Table 36. These data were collectedduring the randomisation process and aretherefore available for every randomised patient.The ORs describe the relationship between achange in the baseline variable and the outcomeof death or disability at 6 months.The trial protocol required the use of a computedtomography (CT) scan to rule out intracranialhaemorrhage. However, where obtaining a CTscan was likely to require a long delay, and theclinician regarded it as very likely that the strokewas ischaemic, a non-comatose patient could berandomised before the CT scan. Table 36 showsthat a high proportion of patients did not reportCT scan results at baseline, and that the absenceof a CT scan indicated poor prognosis. Thisobservation arises through there being arelationship between stroke severity and thedecision to obtain a CT scan.For the purpose of our analyses, the last sixvariables were converted to a score (0–6) giving thenumber of presenting neurological characteristics.The distribution of this score is given in Table 37.Deficit score (Table 37), stroke type andconsciousness (Table 36) appear to have the largestranges of event ranges across their categorisations,indicating that they are likely to be three of themost prognostic variables.Adaptations made to the IST for theresampling projectFor the resampling project, only the comparisonof ‘aspirin’ against ‘avoid aspirin’ was consideredfor the outcome of death or disability at 6 months.To use the IST dataset for this project, themulticentre nature of the trial was exploited toconstruct a series of smaller randomised and nonrandomised‘sub-studies’. Centres falling withingeographical regions were grouped together suchthat sufficient participants were accrued in each167© 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:
© 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 177: © 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?