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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 8TABLE 39 Distribution of baseline characteristics by country and recruitment period (IST)Before (B) or after (A)Sample sizeAdverse outcome (%)Delay (h) (mean)Female (%)Age (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 B 331 55 20 60 71 155 29 28 14 2.9 12 28 + 27 = 54A 266 57 18 61 72 157 29 24 9 3.0 15 37 + 28 = 65Northern Italy B 1216 53 18 54 72 162 30 20 20 3.1 26 38 + 22 = 61A 695 57 17 49 73 162 32 18 19 3.1 31 41 + 21 = 62Central Italy B 710 60 21 60 74 160 24 20 19 2.9 33 50 + 17 = 66A 270 63 19 58 74 163 26 24 16 3.0 31 50 + 19 = 69Southern Italy B 241 56 16 62 70 155 22 20 18 3.0 29 46 + 15 = 62A 305 63 16 66 70 154 31 20 20 3.3 32 45 + 21 = 66The Netherlands B 521 55 17 53 69 168 30 21 10 3.2 15 36 + 29 = 65A 207 52 16 51 70 170 29 17 11 3.0 12 41 + 23 = 64New Zealand B 250 51 25 49 71 155 29 20 18 3.1 3 36 + 24 = 60A 203 51 26 53 73 156 27 18 15 2.9 4 39 + 19 = 58Norway B 316 65 24 52 73 165 28 21 7 2.8 9 43 + 18 = 62A 210 53 23 56 72 164 27 17 5 3.0 3 44 + 21 = 65Poland B 209 55 18 48 70 160 30 30 27 3.4 33 46 + 22 = 68A 550 53 19 52 69 164 36 28 24 3.2 55 43 + 18 = 61Spain B 237 45 19 58 71 155 32 16 14 2.9 21 40 + 23 = 63A 241 47 19 54 72 159 30 14 16 3.2 21 36 + 26 = 62Sweden B 409 46 24 56 75 166 30 16 16 2.5 1 48 + 17 = 66A 227 33 24 53 75 167 31 14 14 2.5 4 54 + 14 = 68Switzerland B 841 66 16 53 73 162 26 32 17 3.1 28 40 + 29 = 69A 790 68 18 50 75 166 33 30 15 3.1 24 39 + 27 = 66Scotland B 694 73 22 51 71 158 28 26 20 3.2 48 35 + 31 = 66A 349 78 25 49 74 158 26 24 23 3.1 40 46 + 25 = 71Northern England B 1562 80 21 52 72 158 28 25 19 3.2 58 41 + 28 = 69and Wales A 1200 78 19 53 72 160 25 25 17 3.0 65 42 + 26 = 68Southern England B 1384 82 21 51 76 159 25 28 23 3.3 62 40 + 30 = 70A 1068 80 24 50 76 157 29 28 24 3.3 60 41 + 30 = 71170
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27TABLE 40 Distribution of baseline characteristics in 10 UK cities combining results across 28 hospitals (IST)Sample sizeAdverse outcome (%)Delay (h) (mean)Female (%)Age (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 (%)Belfast 234 85 26 47 76 151 30 38 22 3.1 28 40 + 29 = 70Bishop Auckland 234 80 16 48 74 159 30 31 19 3.2 75 41 + 31 = 72Blackburn 221 83 15 52 72 161 30 21 18 3.2 74 45 + 24 = 69Edinburgh 329 57 22 49 69 159 29 20 20 3.0 34 36 + 27 = 63Leeds 226 58 19 54 65 160 28 19 10 2.9 64 34 + 24 = 58Liverpool 536 80 17 54 72 162 26 19 19 2.8 89 49 + 21 = 71London 344 82 24 49 76 160 27 26 23 3.2 12 39 + 27 = 66Newcastle 361 83 26 46 75 156 26 31 21 3.3 25 39 + 32 = 71Nottingham 305 83 17 50 77 161 22 24 22 3.2 97 31 + 30 = 61Sheffield 308 71 21 58 71 159 27 21 14 3.0 50 38 + 23 = 61The distribution of the outcome of dead ordependent at 6 months and of the baselinecharacteristics in these sub-studies are described inTable 38. Table 39 describes the baselinecharacteristics for the cohorts split according to‘early recruits’ (before) and ‘late recruits’ (after).Differences are evident in both tables in thefrequency of the outcome and for some of thebaseline characteristics, notably the percentagewith total anterior strokes, or admitted ‘drowsy orunconscious’.These 14 regions contain data from 15,502 (80%)of the randomised participants. The 3933excluded participants were recruited in Argentina,Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Eire, Finland, France, Greece,Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Israel, Japan,Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic,Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey and theUSA, but without sufficient numbers in any regionto construct an additional centre.A second set of 10 sub-studies was constructedfrom the UK data, by grouping hospitals withincities, including a total of 3098 participants (50%of those recruited in the UK). The distribution ofbaseline variables across the 10 cities is shown inTable 40. Data from these sub-studies were usedonly to construct concurrently controlled studies,insufficient data being available for the historicallycontrolled comparisons.The European Carotid SurgeryTrial (ECST) 133Description of the trialThe ECST investigated the risks and benefits ofcarotid endarterectomy, primarily in terms ofstroke prevention. Between October 1981 andMarch 1994, 3024 patients with recentlysymptomatic carotid stenosis entering 100centres in 14 countries were randomised tocarotid endarterectomy or control (avoid surgeryas long as possible). Patients were eligible forinclusion if they had had at least one transient ormild symptomatic ischaemic vascular event withinthe last 6 months, and had some degree ofcarotid stenosis. Randomisation was performedcentrally using a minimisation algorithm, 60% ofpatients being allocated to surgery and 40% tocontrol.Of the 1811 allocated surgery, 1745 (96%) hadreceived it within 1 year. Of the 1213 allocatedcontrol, 42 (3%) received surgery within 1 year.The control treatment usually consisted of advice171© 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 181: 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?