Reported effects in randomized controlled trials were compared with those of nonrandomized trials in cholecystectomy

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 63, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1082-1090

  Müeller, Dirk ^a,b   Sauerland, Stefan ^a   Neugebauer, Edmund A M ^a   Immenroth, Marc ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^c ETHICON INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Epidemiological research; External validity; Heterogeneity; Internal validity; Laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Observational studies

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BILE DUCT INJURY; BILE LEAKAGE; BLEEDING; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HEART DISEASE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; ILEUS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MEDLINE; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESPIRATORY TRACT DISEASE; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; WOUND INFECTION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CHOLECYSTECTOMY; CHOLECYSTECTOMY, LAPAROSCOPIC; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78349270196     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 2002;359:57-61.
2. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat Med 1989;8: 441-54.
3. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. Howstudy design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Stat Med 1989;8:455-66.
4. Guyatt GH, DiCenso A, Farewell V, Willan A, Griffith L. Randomized trials versus observational studies in adolescent pregnancy prevention. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:167-74.
5. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983;309: 1358-61.
6. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet 2005;365:82-93.
7. Mant D. Can randomised trials inform clinical decisions about individual patients? Lancet 1999;353:743-6.
8. McPherson K. The best and the enemy of the good: randomised controlled trials, uncertainty, and assessing the role of patient choice in medical decision making. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1994;48: 6-15.
9. Russell RC. Surgical research. Lancet 1996;347:1480. author reply 1482.
10. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 1996;312:1215-8.
11. McLeod R. Randomized, controlled trials: is there a role for them in surgery? Ann Surg 2006;244:684-5.
12. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2). MR000012.
13. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878-86.
14. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1887-92.
15. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technol Assess 2005;9:iiieiv. 1-146.
16. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7:iiiex, 1-173.
17. Audige L, Hanson B, Kopjar B. Issues in the planning and conduct of non-randomised studies. Injury 2006;37:340-8.
18. Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D, Barnhart K. A simulation using data from a primary care practice database closely replicated the women's health initiative trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:686-95.
19. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R. Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group. Br J Surg 1991;78: 150-4.
20. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1073-8.
21. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 1996;347: 989-94.
22. Ros A, Gustafsson L, Krook H, Nordgren CE, Thorell A, Wallin G, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Ann Surg 2001;234:741-9.
23. Adamsen S, Hansen OH, Funch-Jensen P, Schulze S, Stage JG, Wara P. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective nationwide series. J Am Coll Surg 1997;184:571-8.
24. Targarona EM, Marco C, Balague C, Rodriguez J, Cugat E, Hoyuela C, et al. How, when, and why bile duct injury occurs. A comparison between open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998;12:322-6.
25. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Retrospective clinical studies in surgery: potentials and pitfalls. J Hand Surg [Br] 2002;27:117-21.
26. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:ieiv. 1-124.
27. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352: 609-13.
28. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-9.
29. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003;73: 712-6.
30. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 2001;5(12):1-79.
31. Woodfield JC, Beshay NM, Pettigrew RA, Plank LD, van Rij AM. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of physical status as a predictor of wound infection. ANZ J Surg 2007;77:738-41.
32. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001;20:3625-33.
33. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
34. Keus F, de Vries J, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy: health status in a blind randomised trial. Surg Endosc 2008;22:1649-59.
35. McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, Ross S, Anderson JR, Morran CG, et al. Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet 1994;343:135-8.
36. Furlan AD, Tomlinson G, Jadad AA, 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.
37. Kunz R. Randomized trials and observational studies: still mostly similar results, still crucial differences. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61: 207-8.
38. Vandenbroucke JP. Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science. PLoS Med 2008;5:-67.
39. Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 2002;235:803-13.
40. Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821-30.
41. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg 2006;244:668-76.