Randomized versus nonrandomized studies of alcohol treatment: Participants, methodological features and posttreatment functioning

Journal of Studies on Alcohol

Volumn 63, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 542-550

  Moyer, Anne ^a   Finney, John W ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL ABSTINENCE; ALCOHOLISM; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0036744399     PISSN: 0096882X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2002.63.542     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Altman, D.G. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. Brit. Med. J. 313: 570-571, 1996.
2. Altman, D.G., Schulz, K.F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gotzsche, P.C. and Lang, T. For The CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 134: 663-694, 2001.
3. Barton, S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. Brit. Med. J. 321: 255-256, 2000.
4. Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., Pitkin, R., Rennie, D., Schulz, K.F., Simel, D. and Stroup, D.F. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276: 637-639, 1996.
5. Benson, K. and Hartz, A.J. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. New Eng. J. Med. 342: 1878-1886, 2000.
6. Berlin, J.A., and Rennie, D. Measuring the quality of trials: The quality of quality scales. JAMA 282: 1083-1085, 1999.
7. Black, N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. Brit. Med. J. 312: 1215-1218, 1996.
8. Britton, A., McKee, M., Black, N., Mcpherson, K., Sanderson, C. and Bain, C. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: A systematic review. Hlth Tech. Assess. 2 (13): i-iv, 1-124, 1998.
9. Carroll, K.M. New methods of treatment efficacy research: Bridging clinical research and clinical practice. Alcohol Hlth Res. World 21: 352-359, 1997.
10. Carroll, K.M., Nich, C., McLellan, A.T., McKay, J.R. and Rounsaville, B.J. "Research" versus "real-world" patients: Representativeness of participants in clinical trials of treatments for cocaine dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 54: 171-177, 1999.
11. Chalmers, T.C., Celano, P., Sacks, H.S. and Smith, H., Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Eng. J. Med. 309: 1358-1361, 1983.
12. Chambless, D.L. and Hollon, S.D. Defining empirically supported therapies. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 66: 7-18, 1998.
13. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
14. Colditz, G.A., Miller, J.N. and Mosteller, F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat. Med. 8: 441-454, 1989.
15. Concato, J., Shah, N. and Horwitz, R.I. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New Eng. J. Med. 342: 1887-1892, 2000.
16. De Leon, G., Inciardi, J.A. and Martin, S.S. Residential drug abuse treatment research: Are conventional control designs appropriate for assessing treatment effectiveness? J. Psychoact. Drugs 27: 85-91, 1995.
17. Donovan, D.M. Efficacy and effectiveness: Complementary findings from two multisite trials evaluating outcomes of alcohol treatments differing in theoretical orientations. Alcsm Clin. Exp. Res. 23: 564-572, 1999.
18. Finney, J.W. and Monahan, S.C. The cost-effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: A second approximation. J. Stud. Alcohol 57: 229-243, 1996.
19. Floyd, A.S., Monahan, S.C., Finney, J.W. and Morley, J.A. Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1980-1992: The nature of the research. Addict. Behav. 21: 413-428, 1996.
20. Goldfried, M.R. and Wolfe, B.E. Toward a more clinically valid approach to therapy research. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 66: 143-150, 1998.
21. Heinsman, D.T. and Shadish, W.R. Assignment methods in experimentation: When do nonrandomized experiments approximate answers from randomized experiments? Psychol. Meth. 1: 154-169, 1996.
22. Howard, K.I., Cox, W.M. and Saunders, S.M. Attrition in substance abuse comparative treatment research: The illusion of randomization. In: Onken, L.S. and Blaine, J.D. (Eds.) Psychotherapy and Counseling in the Treatment of Drug Abuse. NIDA Research Monograph No. 104, DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 90-1722, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1990, pp. 66-79.
23. Howard, K.I., Krause, M.S., and Lyons, J.S. When clinical trials fail: A guide to disaggregation. In: Onken, L.S., Blaine, J.D. and Boren, J.J. (Eds.) Behavioral Treatments for Drug Abuse and Dependence. NIDA Research Monograph No. 137, NIH Publication No. 93-3684, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1993, pp. 291-302.
24. Hsu, L.M. Random sampling, randomization, and equivalence of contrasted groups in psychotherapy outcome research. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 57: 131-137, 1989.
25. Humphreys, K. and Weisner, C. Use of exclusion criteria in selecting research subjects and its effect on the generalizability of alcohol treatment outcome studies. Amer. J. Psychiat. 157: 588-594, 2000.
26. Kleijnen, J., Gotzsche, P., Kunz, R.A., Oxman, A.D. and Chalmers, I. So what's so special about randomisation? In: Maynard, A. and Chalmers, I. (Eds.) Non-Random Reflections on Health Services Research: On the 25th Anniversary of Archie Cochrane's Effectiveness and Efficiency, London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1997, pp. 93-106.
27. Kunz, R., Khan, K.S. and Neumayer, H.-H. Observational studies and randomized trials (correspondence). New Eng. J. Med. 343: 1194-1195, 2000.
28. Kunz, R. and Oxman, A.D. The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. Brit. Med. J. 317: 1185-1190, 1998.
29. Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. The way in which intervention studies have "personality" and why it is important to meta-analysis. Eval. Hlth Profess. 24: 236-254, 2001.
30. Liu, P.-Y., Anderson, G. and Crowley, J.J. Observational studies and randomized trials (correspondence). New Eng. J. Med. 343: 1195, 2000.
31. Lohr, K.N. and Carey, T.S. Assessing "best evidence": Issues in grading the quality of studies for systematic reviews. Joint Commis. J. Qual. Imp. 25: 470-479, 1999.
32. McKay, J.R., Alterman, A.I., McLellan, A.T., Snider, E.C. and O'Brien, C.P. Effect of random versus nonrandom assignment in a comparison of inpatient and day hospital rehabilitation for male alcoholics. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 63: 70-78, 1995.
33. McKee, M., Britton, A., Black, N., Mcpherson, K., Sanderson, C. and Bain, C. Interpreting the evidence: Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. Brit. Med. J. 319: 312-315, 1999.
34. MacLehose, R.R., Reeves, B.C., Harvey, I.M., Sheldon, T.A., Russell, I.T. and Black, A.M. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Hlth Tech. Assess. 4 (34): 1-154, 2000.
35. Malcolm, R., Anton, R.F., Randall, C.L., Johnston, A., Brady, K. and Thevos, A. A placebo-controlled trial of buspirone in anxious inpatient alcoholics. Alcsm Clin. Exp. Res. 16: 1007-1013, 1992.
36. Miller, J.N., Colditz, G.A. and Mosteller, F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Stat. Med. 8: 455-466, 1989.
37. Miller, W.R. and Sanchez-Craig, M. How to have a high success rate in treatment: Advice for evaluators of alcoholism programs. Addiction 91: 779-785, 1996.
38. Moher, D., Cook, D.J., Jadad, A.R., Tugwell, P., Moher, M., Jones, A., Pham, B. and Klassen, T.P. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Hlth Tech. Assess. 3 (12): i-iv, 1-98, 1999.
39. Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D.J., Jadad, A.R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P. and Klassen, T.P. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352: 609-613, 1998.
40. Morley, J.A., Finney, J.W., Monahan, S.C. and Floyd, A.S. Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1980-1992: Methodological characteristics and quality. Addict. Behav. 21: 429-443, 1996.
41. Moyer, A., Finney, J.W. and Swearingen, C.E. Methodological characteristics and quality of alcohol treatment outcome studies, 1970-1998: An expanded evaluation. Addiction 97: 253-263, 2002.
42. Nathan, P.E., Stuart, S.P. and Dolan, S.L. Research on psychotherapy efficacy and effectiveness: Between Scylla and Charybdis? Psychol. Bull. 126: 964-981, 2000.
43. Öjehagen, A. and Berglund, M. Acceptance, attrition, and outcome in an outpatient programme for alcoholics. A comparison between a randomized and a non-randomized process-outcome study. Europ. Arch. Psychiat. Clin. Neurosci. 242 (2-3): 82-84, 1992.
44. Ottenbacher, K. Impact of random assignment on study outcome: An empirical examination. Control. Clin. Trials 13: 50-61, 1992.
45. Pocock, S.J. and Elbourne, D.R. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? New Eng. J. Med. 342: 1907-1909, 2000.
46. Project MATCH Research Group. Matching treatments to client heterogeneity: Project MATCH posttreatment drinking outcomes. J. Stud. Alcohol 58: 7-29, 1997.
47. Sacks, H., Chalmers, T.C. and Smith, H., Jr. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Amer. J. Med. 72: 233-240, 1982.
48. Schulz, K.F. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 348: 596-598, 1996.
49. Schulz, K.F., Chalmers, I., Grimes, D.A. and Altman, D.G. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 272: 125-128, 1994.
50. Schulz, K.F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R.J. and Altman, D.G. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273: 408-412, 1995.
51. Schwartz, C.E., Chesney, M.A., Irvine, M.J. and Keefe, F.J. The control group dilemma in clinical research: Applications for psychological and behavioral medicine trials. Psychosom. Med. 59: 362-371, 1997.
52. Seligman, M.E.P. The effectiveness of psychotherapy: The Consumer Reports study. Amer. Psychol. 50: 965-974, 1995.
53. Shadish, W.R. and Ragsdale, K. Random versus nonrandom assignment in controlled experiments: Do you get the same answer? J. Cons. Clin. Psychol. 64: 1290-1305, 1996.
54. Stout, R.L., Wirtz, P.W., Carbonari, J.P. and Del Boca, F.K. Ensuring balanced distribution of prognostic factors in treatment outcome research. J. Stud. Alcohol, Supplement No. 12, pp. 70-75, 1994.
55. Strohmetz, D.B., Alterman, A.I. and Walter, D. Subject selection bias in alcoholics volunteering for a treatment study. Alcsm Clin. Exp. Res. 14: 736-738, 1990.
56. Sturm, R., Unützer, J. and Katon, W. Effectiveness research and implications for study design: Sample size and statistical power. Gen. Hosp. Psychiat. 21: 274-283, 1999.
57. Swearingen, C.E., Moyer, A. and Finney, J.W. Alcoholism treatment outcome studies, 1970-1998: An expanded look at the nature of the research. Addict. Behav., in press.
58. Wei, L.J. An application of an um model to the design of sequential controlled clinical trials. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 73: 559-563, 1987.
59. Wells, K.B. Treatment research at the crossroads: The scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research. Amer. J. Psychiat. 156: 5-10, 1999.
60. Welton, A.J., Vickers, M.R., Cooper, J.A., Meade, T.W. and Marteau, T.M. Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in randomised controlled trials? A quasirandomised, interview based study. Brit. Med. J. 318: 1114-1117, 1999.
61. Westerberg, V.S., Miller, W.R. and Tonigan, J.S. Comparison of outcomes for clients in randomized versus open trials of treatment for alcohol use disorders. J. Stud. Alcohol 61: 720-727, 2000.
62. Whiting-O'Keefe, Q.E., Henke, C. and Simborg, D.W. Choosing the correct unit of analysis in medical care experiments. Med. Care 22: 1101-1114, 1984.