Are more observational studies being included in Cochrane Reviews?

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 5, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Kongsted, Hans Christian ^a   Konnerup, Merete ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b Campbell Collaborations Steering Group and Trygfonden   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Observational study; Randomized controlled trial; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; OBSERVATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; OBSERVATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84869839953     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-570     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isnt. Sackett DL, et al. BMJ 1996 312 7023 71 72 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 8555924
2. Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Evidence-based medicine working group, JAMA 1992 268 2420 2425 1404801
3. Website of the Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane.org (accessed September 27, 2012)
4. Website of the Campbell Collaboration. http://www.campbellcollaboration. org/ (accessed September 27, 2012)
5. The Campbell Collaboration. Does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. Davies P, Boruch R, BMJ 2001 323 294 295 Editorial 10.1136/bmj.323. 7308.294 11498472 (Pubitemid 32744452)
6. From the website of the Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane.org/ multimedia/multimedia-cochrane-colloquia-and-meetings/colloquium-colorado-2010 (accessed September 27, 2012)
7. Evidence favouring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H Jr, Kunzler A-M, N Engl J Med 1977 297 1091 6 10.1056/NEJM197711172972004 909566 (Pubitemid 8210468)
8. Randomised versus historical controls for clinical trials. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Am J Med 1982 72 233 40 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90815-4 7058834 (Pubitemid 12191842)
9. Synthesis of results in trials of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Wortman P, Yeaton WH, Evaluation Studies Review Annual Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Light R, 1983 536 57 Volume 8
10. A comparison of randomised concurrent control groups with matched control groups: are historical controls valid? Diehl LF, Perry DJ, J Clin Oncol 1986 4 1114 20 3723167 (Pubitemid 16059738)
11. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I:medical. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F, Stat Med 1989 8 441 54 10.1002/sim. 4780080408 2727468 (Pubitemid 19105892)
12. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II:surgical. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F, Stat Med 1989 8 455 66 10.1002/sim. 4780080409 2727469 (Pubitemid 19105893)
13. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Kunz R, Vist GE, Oxman AD, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (an update-with conclusions unchanged-of Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998, 317:1185-1190.)
14. Comparison of effects size estimates derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Reeves BC, MacLehose RR, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS, et al. Health Services Research Methods: a guide to best practice London: BMJ Publishing Group, Black N, 1998 73 85
15. Methods in health services research: Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. McKee M, Britton A, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C, BMJ 1999 319 312 315 10426754 (Pubitemid 29353952)
16. Two systematic reviews-two different answers? Kunz R, Oxman A, BMJ Rapid Responses 1999 319 312.1
17. Three systematic reviews-not so difference answers? Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C, BMJ Rapid Responses 1999 319 312.1
18. Randomised controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI, New England Medical Journal 2000 342 25 1887 1892 10.1056/NEJM200006223422507 (Pubitemid 30419054)
19. A comparison of observational studies and randomised, controlled trials. Benson K, Hartz AJ, New England Journal of Medicine 2000 342 25 1878 1886 10.1056/NEJM200006223422506 10861324 (Pubitemid 30419053)
20. Randomised Trials or Observational Tribulations? Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR, New England Journal of Medicine 2000 342 1907 1909 Editorial. 10.1056/NEJM200006223422511 10861329 (Pubitemid 30419058)
21. Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomised and Nonrandomised Studies. Ioannidis JPA, Haideich A-B, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J, JAMA 2001 286 7 821 830 10.1001/jama.286.7.821 11497536 (Pubitemid 33015576)
22. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. Barton S, BMJ Editorials 2000 321 25 155 6
23. Kristiansen IS, Gosden T, Evaluating economic interventions: a role for non-randomised designs? Chp. 9 in Donaldson, CAM (Editor). Evidence Based Health Economics London: GBR: BMJ Publishing Group 2002
24. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Deeks JJ, et al. Health Technology Assessment 2003 7 27
25. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Vandenbroucke JP, Lancet 2004 363 1728 1731 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16261-2 15158638 (Pubitemid 38670333)
26. Beyond randomised versus observational studies. Concato J, Horwitz RI, Lancet 2004 363 1660 1661 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16285-5 15158623 (Pubitemid 38670319)
27. Randomised control trials for policy interventions: a review of reviews and meta-regression. Oliver S, Bagnall AM, Thomas J, Shepherd J, Sowden A, White I, Dinnes J, Rees R, Colquitt J, Garrett Z, Oliver K, Health Technology Assessment 2010 14 16
28. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Guidelines for the Development and Implementation Service Canberra, Australia 1995
29. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG, PLoS Med 2007 4 3 78 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 17388659 (Pubitemid 46495312)
30. Do Cochrane Reviews Provide a Good Model for Social Science? The role of Observational Studies in Systematic Reviews. Konnerup M, Kongsted HC, Evidence and Policy 2012 8 1 79 96 10.1332/174426412X620146
31. Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2009 Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
32. Looking for the Evidence in Medicine. Taubes G, Science New Series 1996 272 5258 22 24 (Pubitemid 26110744)