Roaming through methodology. XX. Randomization as a remedy against confounding by indication;Dwalingen in de methodologie. XX. Randomisatie als middel tegen verstoring door indicatie

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

Volumn 144, Issue 32, 2000, Pages 1528-1531

  Zielhuis, G A ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT INDICATION;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH;

EID: 0034609197     PISSN: 00282162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (12)

1. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
2. CCU versus hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction
3. Pitfalls in evaluating the impact of coronary care units on mortality from myocardial infarctions
4. Influence of treatment in a CCU on prognosis inacute myocardial infarction. A controlled study in 271 cases
5. Myocardial infarction: A comparison between home and hospital care for patients
6. A randomised trial of home-versus-hospital management for patients with suspected myocardial infarction
7. The need for randomisation in the study of intended effects
8. Assessment and control for confounding by indication in observational studies
9. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: A systematic review
10. The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials
11. Comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies