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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 8TABLE 36 Dead or dependent at 6 months according to treatment and baseline characteristics (IST)Aspirin (n = 9639) No aspirin (n = 9646) OR (95% CI)No. (% adverse outcomes) No. (% adverse outcomes)168Events at 6 months 6000 (62.2) 6125 (63.5) 0.95 (0.89 to 1.01)Delay (h from symptoms)0–3 414 (70.5) 422 (70.6)4–6 1157 (66.1) 1148 (69.5)7–12 2005 (63.5) 2079 (63.3)13–24 2798 (60.8) 2730 (63.0)25–48 3265 (60.3) 3267 (61.0) 0.90 (0.84 to 0.96) per daySexF 4530 (69.5) 4436 (70.5) 1.00M 5109 (55.8) 5210 (57.4) 0.56 (0.53 to 0.60)Age (years)
<strong>Health</strong> Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27TABLE 37 Dead or dependent at 6 months according to neurological deficit score (IST)Aspirin (n = 7749) No aspirin (n = 7753) OR (95% CI)Deficit score No. (% adverse outcomes) No. (% adverse outcomes)0 267 (43.8) 246 (39.8)1 719 (41.6) 767 (38.5)2 1373 (53.0) 1421 (51.4)3 2298 (63.4) 2252 (63.4)4 2028 (78.8) 2020 (77.7)5 861 (88.6) 843 (88.6) 1.64 (1.60 to 1.68) per unit increase in score6 203 (92.1) 204 (86.7)TABLE 38 Distribution of baseline characteristics by country (IST)Sample sizeAdverse outcome (%)Delay (h) (mean)Female (%)Age in (years) (mean)Systolic blood pressure (mean)Symptoms on waking (%)Drowsy or unconscious (%)Atrial fibrillation (%)Deficit score (mean)No CT scan (%)Partial anterior +Total anterior strokes (%)Australia 597 56 19 60 71 155 29 26 12 3.0 13 32 + 27 = 59Northern Italy 1911 55 17 52 72 162 31 20 20 3.1 28 39 + 22 = 61Central Italy 980 61 21 60 74 161 24 21 18 2.9 32 50 + 17 = 67Southern Italy 546 60 16 64 70 154 27 20 19 3.2 31 46 + 18 = 64The Netherlands 728 54 16 52 69 169 30 20 10 3.1 14 37 + 27 = 64New Zealand 453 51 25 51 72 155 28 19 17 3.0 4 37 + 22 = 59Norway 526 60 24 53 72 165 28 19 6 2.9 6 44 + 19 = 63Poland 759 53 18 51 69 163 34 28 25 3.3 49 44 + 19 = 63Spain 478 46 19 56 71 157 31 15 15 3.1 21 38 + 24 = 62Sweden 636 42 24 55 75 167 30 15 15 2.5 2 50 + 16 = 66Switzerland 1631 67 17 52 74 164 29 31 16 3.1 26 39 + 28 = 67Scotland 1043 75 23 50 72 158 27 25 21 3.2 46 39 + 29 = 68Northern England and Wales 2762 79 20 53 72 159 27 25 18 3.1 61 41 + 27 = 68Southern England 2452 81 22 51 76 159 27 28 24 3.3 61 40 + 30 = 70arm for the resampling to be undertaken. Inaddition, the sequential nature of the studyrecruitment was used to split participants into‘early recruits’ and ‘later recruits’ to enablehistorically controlled <strong>studies</strong> to be constructed.Early recruits were those recruited up to andincluding the 15 January 1995; late recruits werethose recruited after this date. This date waschosen to maximise the number of regionsavailable for inclusion in the study and is close tothe median recruitment date.To be considered as a sub-study for the concurrentcohort design, we required that there were at least100 participants within each arm of each trial. Forthe historical cohort design we required that whenthe arms were divided into early and late recruits,there were at least 100 early control recruits and100 late treatment recruits.Fourteen geographical regions were constructedon this basis for the main analysis for bothconcurrent cohort and historical cohort designs.169© 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 179: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
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?