What randomized trials and systematic reviews can offer decision makers

Hormone Research

Volumn 51, Issue SUPPL. 1, 1999, Pages 36-43

  Altman, Douglas G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical decision making; Meta analysis; Non randomized trial; Observational study; Randomized controlled trial; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 0033000457     PISSN: 03010163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000053134     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB: Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. London: Churchill-Livingstone, 1997.
2. Miao LL: Gastric freezing: An example of the evaluation of medical therapy by randomized clinical trials. In: Bunker JP, Barnes BA, Mosteiler F (eds.). Costs, risks, and benefits of surgery. New York, Oxford University Press, 1977, pp 198-211.
3. Medical Research Council: Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. BMJ 1948;ii: 769-782.
4. Chalmers I: Unbiased, relevant, and reliable assessments in health care. BMJ 1998;317: 1167-1168.
5. Chalmers I: Assembling comparison groups to assess the effects of health care. J R Soc Med 1997;90:379-386.
6. Jadad AR: Randomised controlled trials. London, BMJ Books, 1998.
7. Altman DG: Randomisation. BMJ 1991;302: 1481-1482.
8. Ellenberg JH: Selection bias in observational and experimental studies. Stat Med 1994; 13: 557-567.
9. Thornley B, Adams C: Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998;317:1181-1184.
10. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116:78-84.
11. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P: Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine, 2nd ed. Boston, Little Brown, 1991, pp 296.
12. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
13. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds JM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay H: Assessing the quality of reports on randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
14. Downs SH, Black N: The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52:377-384.
15. Kunz R, Oxman AD: The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185-1190.
16. Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL: Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 1996; 119:466-472.
17. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG: Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynaecology journals. JAMA 1994;272:125-128.
18. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG: Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-412.
19. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP: Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-613.
20. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I et al: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-639.
21. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC: A comparison of the results of meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA 1992;268:240-248.
22. Decks JJ: Systematic reviews of published evidence: Miracles or minefields? Ann Oncol 1998;9:703-709.
23. D'Agostino RB, Weintraub M: Meta-analysis: A method for synthesizing research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995;58:605-616.
24. Stern JM, Simes RJ: Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997;315: 640-645.
25. Jadad AR, Haynes RB: The Cochrane Collaboration - advances and challenges in improving evidence-based decision making. Med Decis Making 1998;18:2-9.
26. Cochrane AL: 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. London, Office of Health Economics, 1979, pp 1-11.
27. Cochrane AL. Foreword. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (eds). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.
28. The Cochrane Collaboration: The Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software; 1999. [Database on disk and CD-ROM Updated quarterly.]
29. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB: Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:376-380.
30. Bero LA, Jadad AR: How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:37-42.