External validity;Externe validität

Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen

Volumn 102, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 253-259

  Windeler, Jürgen ^a  

^a Medizinischer Dienst der Spitzenverbande der Krankenkassen   (Germany)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Effect modification; External validity; Generalizability

Indexed keywords

EID: 48249087359     PISSN: 18659217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2008.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Moher D, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
2. Weiss NS, Koepsell TD, Psaty BM. Generalizability of the results of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:133-5.
3. Bailey KR. Generalizing the results of randomized clinical trials. Contr Clin Trials 1994;15:15-23.
4. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004Jun19;328(7454):1490.
5. Abel U, Windeler J. Irrtümer in der Bewertung medizinischer Therapien. Ursachen und Konsequenzen. Internist Praxis 1995;35:613-29.
6. Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321-3.
7. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2007;297:842-57.
8. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 1994 Apr 14;330(15):1029-35.
9. Brown N, Melville M, Gray D, Young T, Skene AM, Wilcox RG, et al. Relevance of clinical trial results in myocardial infarction to medical practice: comparison of four year outcome in participants of a thrombolytic trial, patients receiving routine thrombolysis, and those deemed ineligible for thrombolysis. Heart 1999Jun;81(6):598-602.
10. Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Nony P, Chabaud S, Gueyffier F, Wright JM, et al. New insights on the relation between untreated and treated outcomes for a given therapy effect model is not necessarily linear. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:301-7.
11. Rothwell PM. Treating individuals: Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176-86.
12. Janatzek S. Aussagekraft von Subgruppen-Analysen, 2004. 〈http://www.mds-ev.org/download/subgruppen-gutachten.pdf〉.
13. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Library 3 (2007).
14. Furlan AD, Tomlinson G, Jadad AR, Bombardier C. Methodological quality and homogeneity influenced agreement between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of the same intervention for back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:209-31.
15. Kuss O, Legler T, Börgermann J. Gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen randomisierten und nicht-randomisierten Studien? Evidenz aus einer "Meta-Propensity Score-Analyse" in der Herzchirurgie 54. Biometrisches Kolloquium, München, 10.-13.3.2008.
16. Gartlehner G, Hansen RA, Nissman D, Lohr KN, Carey TS. A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:1040-8.
17. Kaptchuk TJ. The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf? J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:541-9.
18. Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002;324:71-86.
19. Rothwell PM. Treating Individuals: External validity of randomised controlled trials: "To whom do the results of this trial apply"? Lancet 2005;365:82-93.