French Health Authority (HAS) Guidance: The post-registration studies on health technologies (drugs, medical devices and instruments): Principles and methods;Guide de la Haute autorité de santé (HAS): Les études post-inscription sur les technologies de santé (médicaments, dispositifs médicaux et actes): Principes et méthodes

Therapie

Volumn 67, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 409-421

  Stamenkovic, Sophie ^a   Solesse, Anne ^a   Zanetti, Laura ^a   Zagury, Pascale ^a   Vray, Muriel ^b  

^a HAS   (France)

^b INSTITUT PASTEUR   (France)

Author keywords

Epidemiology; Health technology assessment; Methodology; Post registration studies; Real life study

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FRANCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTRATION;

EID: 84871382304     PISSN: 00405957     EISSN: 19585578     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2515/therapie/2012065     Document Type: Article

References (147)

1. Association des épidémiologistes de langue française, Association pour le développement des études et recherches en épidémiologie sur la santé au travail, Association pour l'étude de l'épidémiologie des maladies animales, Association pour le développement de l'épidé miologie de terrain. Recommandations de déontologie et bonnes pratiques en épidémiologie (version France 2007). Bordeaux: ADELF; 2007 http://adelf.isped.u-bordeaux2.fr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BHPxc8buLII%3d& tabid=534
2. Von Elm E, Egger M, Altman DG et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007; 335 (7624): 806-8 (Pubitemid 350057266)
3. GRACE Initiative. Grace principles. Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness 2010. http://www.graceprinciples.org
4. European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, European Medicines Agency. Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology 2011. http://www.encepp.eu/standards-and-guidances/ documents/ENCePPGuideofMethStandardsinPE.pdf
5. Martin K, Bégaud B, Latry P et al. Differences between clinical trials and postmarketing use. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 57 (1): 86-92 (Pubitemid 38071811)
6. Bajard A, Chabaud S, Pérol D et al. Revisiting the level of evidence in randomized controlled clinical trials: a simulation approach. Contemp Clin Trials 2009; 30 (5): 400-10
7. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?" Lancet 2005; 365 (9453): 82-93 (Pubitemid 40082150)
8. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 2002; 359 (9300): 57-61 (Pubitemid 34119200)
9. Coca SG, Krumholz HM, Garg AX et al. Underrepresentation of renal disease in randomized controlled trials of cardiovascular disease. JAMA 2006; 296 (11): 1377-84 (Pubitemid 44427424)
10. Zarin DA, Young JL, West JC. Challenges to evidence-based medicine: a comparison of patients and treatments in randomized controlled trials with patients and treatments in a practice research network. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2005; 40 (1): 27-35 (Pubitemid 40069169)
11. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how "out of control" can a randomised controlled trial be ? BMJ 2004; 328 (7455): 1561-3 (Pubitemid 38850320)
12. McMahon AD. Observation and experiment with the efficacy of drugs: a warning example from a cohort of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and ulcer-healing drug users. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154 (6): 557-62 (Pubitemid 32867955)
13. Epstein LH. The direct effects of compliance on health outcome. Health Psychol 1984; 3 (4): 385-93
14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357 (9263): 1191-4 (Pubitemid 32378696)
15. Bouyer J, Hémon D, Cordier S, et al. Ipidémiologie. Principes et méthodes quantitatives. Paris: Iditions INSERM; 1993
16. Strom BL. Methodologic challenges to studying patient safety and comparative effectiveness. Med Care 2007; 45 (10 Suppl 2): S13-S15
17. Tarwater PM, Mellors J, Gore ME et al. Methods to assess population effectiveness of therapies in human immunodeficiency virus incident and prevalent cohorts. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154 (7): 675-81 (Pubitemid 32888786)
18. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank. Handbook on impact evaluation. Quantitative methods and practices. Washington: The World Bank; 2010
19. Cousens S, Hargreaves J, Bonell C et al. Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public-health interventions: statistical analysis and causal inference. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011; 65 (7): 576-81
20. Rubin DB. For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Ann Appl Stat 2008; 2 (3): 808-40
21. De Vreese L, Campaner R, Longworth F, et al. Pluralism in the philosophy of causation. Philosophica 2006; 77(1) http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/federica/files/ 2009/11/Volume77-volledig.pdf
22. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA et al. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med 2010; 123 (12 Suppl 1): e16-e23
23. Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007; 82 (2): 143-56 (Pubitemid 47075343)
24. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, d'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7(27) http://www.hta.ac.uk/ fullmono/mon727.pdf
25. Schmoor C, Caputo A, Schumacher M. Evidence from nonrandomized studies: a case study on the estimation of causal effects. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 167 (9): 1120-9 (Pubitemid 351601242)
26. American Educational Research Association. Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington: AERA; 2007. http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Books/Estimating-Causal-Effects/ Causal%20Effects.pdf
27. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. What are pragmatic trials? BMJ 1998; 316 (7127): 285
28. Bouvenot G, Vray M. Essais cliniques. Théorie, pratique et critique. 4è ed rev et augm. Flammarion Médecine Sciences; 2006
29. Califf RM, Woodlief LH. Pragmatic and mechanistic trials. Eur Heart J 1997; 18 (3): 367-70 (Pubitemid 27110467)
30. Resch KL. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials for complex therapies. Forsch Komplementarmed 1998; 5 (Suppl 1): 136-9
31. Glasgow RE, Magid DJ, Beck A et al. Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice. Design and measurement recommendations. Med Care 2005; 43 (6): 551-7
32. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 28
33. Ware JH, Hamel MB. Pragmatic trials: guides to better patient care? [comment]. N Engl J Med 2011; 364 (18): 1685-7
34. Whittaker K, Sutton C, Burton C. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in parenting research: the issue of intention to treat. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60 (10): 858-64 (Pubitemid 44482804)
35. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008; 337: a2390
36. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 1967; 20 (8): 637-48
37. Lieberman JA, Stroup TS. Guest editors' introduction: what can large pragmatic clinical trials do for public mental health care? Schizophr Bull 2003; 29 (1): 1-6 (Pubitemid 36871052)
38. MacPherson H. Pragmatic clinical trials. Complement Ther Med 2004; 12 (2-3): 136-40 (Pubitemid 39618841)
39. Silverman WA. Sample size, representativeness, and credibility in pragmatic neonatal trials. Am J Perinatol 1987; 4 (2): 129-30 (Pubitemid 17066209)
40. Relton C, Torgerson D, O'Cathain A et al. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the "cohort multiple randomised controlled trial" design. BMJ 2010; 340: c1066
41. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials. Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290 (12): 1624-32
42. Roland M, Torgerson D. What outcomes should be measured? BMJ 1998; 317 (7165): 1075 (Pubitemid 28466729)
43. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report. Part III. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1062-73
44. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158 (9): 915-20 (Pubitemid 37323253)
45. Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007; 26 (1): 20-36 (Pubitemid 46099415)
46. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet 2002; 359 (9303): 341-5 (Pubitemid 34119302)
47. Cologne JB, Sharp GB, Neriishi K et al. Improving the efficiency of nested case-control studies of interaction by selecting controls using counter matching on exposure. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33 (3): 485-92 (Pubitemid 38997218)
48. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Risk of myocardial infarction in patients taking cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors or conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: population based nested case-control analysis. BMJ 2005; 330 (7504): 1366
49. Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Nony P et al. Modélisation numérique et simulation: nouvelles applications en pharmacologie. Therapie 2005; 60 (1): 1-15 (Pubitemid 40469305)
50. Leplège A, Coste J. Mesure de la santé perceptuelle et de la qualité de vie: méthodes et applications. Paris: Iditions Estem; 2001
51. Falissard B. Mesurer la subjectivité en santé. Perspective méthodologique et statistique. Paris: Masson; 2001
52. Mesbah M, Cole BF, Ting Lee ML. Statistical methods for quality of life studies. Design, measurements and analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002
53. Sales AE, Plomondon ME, Magid DJ et al. Assessing response bias from missing quality of life data: the Heckman method. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 49
54. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003
55. HAS. Choix méthodologiques pour l'évaluation économique à la HAS. Guide méthodologique. Saint-Denis La Plaine: HAS; 2011 http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/ 2011-11/guide-methodo-vf.pdf
56. Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2006; 15 (12): 1295-310 (Pubitemid 44941606)
57. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998
58. Strom BL. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2005
59. Rumeau-Rouquette C, Blondel B, Kaminski M, et al. Ipidémiologie. Méthodes et pratique. Paris: Flammarion Médecine Sciences; 1993
60. Sedgwick P. Observational study design II. BMJ 2011; 342: d1903
61. Claudot F, Fresson J, Coudane H et al. Recherche en épidé miologie clinique: quelles règles appliquer ? Rev Epidemiol Sante Publ 2008; 56 (1): 63-70
62. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. London: Little, Brown and Co; 1987
63. Jenicek M, Cléroux R. Ipidémiologie. Principes, techniques, applications. Paris: Maloine; 1987
64. Morton RF, Hebel JR. Ipidémiologie et biostatistique: une introduction programmée. Paris: Doin; 1990
65. Stürmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J. Pharmacoepidemiology and " in silico " drug evaluation: is there common ground ? J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (3): 205-6
66. Last JM. A dictionary of epidemiology 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001
67. Leclerc BS. L'épidémiologie contemporaine en crise de paradigme. Ruptures 2005; 10 (2): 178-98
68. Doubovetzky JV. Médecine fondée sur les niveaux de preuve: tenir compte des données manquantes. Rev Med Ass Mal 2001; 32 (2): 193-9
69. Donzé L. L'imputation des données manquantes, la technique de l'imputation multiple, les conséquences sur l'analyse des données: l'enquête 1999 KOF/ETHZ sur l'innovation 2001. http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv.php?pid=eth:24910&dsID= eth-24910-01.pdf
70. Institut de veille sanitaire, Bousquet V, le Strat Y, Gallay A. Prise en compte des données manquantes dans une enquête épidé miologique: intérêt de l'imputation multiple et application à une enquête cas-témoins nationale. Journées de veille sanitaire 2007. http://www.invs.sante.fr/publications/2007/jvs-2007/ methodo/3.pdf
71. Klebanoff MA, Cole SR. Use of multiple imputation in the epidemiologic literature. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168 (4): 355-7
72. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163 (6): 493-501
73. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 2002; 359 (9302): 248-52 (Pubitemid 34113828)
74. Macleod J, Davey Smith G, Heslop P et al. Psychological stress and cardiovascular disease: empirical demonstration of bias in a prospective observational study of Scottish men. BMJ 2002; 324 (7348): 1247-51 (Pubitemid 34553561)
75. Fine PEM, Williams TN, Aaby P et al. Epidemiological studies of the 'non-specific effects' of vaccines. I: data collection in observational studies. Trop Med Int Health 2009; 14 (9): 969-76
76. Mamdani M, Sykora K, Li P et al. Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies. 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 2005; 330 (7497): 960-2
77. Novikov I, Kalter-Leibovici O. Analytic approaches to observational studies with treatment selection bias. JAMA 2007; 297 (19): 2077 (Pubitemid 46798180)
78. Törner A, Duberg AS, Dickman P et al. A proposed method to adjust for selection bias in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 171 (5): 602-8
79. Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist GE, Timmer A et al. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011; Issue 4: MR000012
80. Moride Y, Abenhaim L. Evidence of the depletion of susceptibles effect in non-experimental pharmacoepidemiologic research. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47 (7): 731-7 (Pubitemid 24236255)
81. Zhou Z, Rahme E, Abrahamowicz M et al. Survival bias associated with time-to-treatment initiation in drug effectiveness evaluation: a comparison of methods. Am J Epidemiol 2005; 162 (10): 1016-23 (Pubitemid 41619473)
82. Lévesque LE, Hanley JA, Kezouh A et al. Problem of immortal time bias in cohort studies: example using statins for preventing progression of diabetes. BMJ 2010; 340: b5087
83. Gardarsdottir H, Egberts TC, Stolker JJ et al. Duration of antidepressant drug treatment and its influence on risk of relapse/recurrence: immortal and neglected time bias. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 170 (3): 280-5
84. Suissa S. Immeasurable time bias in observational studies of drug effects on mortality. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168 (3): 329-35 (Pubitemid 352019783)
85. Suissa S. Immortal time bias in pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 167 (4): 492-9 (Pubitemid 351264145)
86. Pearl J. Why there is no statistical test for confounding, why many think there is, and why they are almost right 1998. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 2hw5r3tm
87. Wunsch G. Confounding and control. Demogr Res 2007; 16 (4): 97-120
88. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GCS et al. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2009; 172 (1): 21-47
89. Christenfeld NJS, Sloan RP, Carroll D et al. Risk factors, confounding, and the illusion of statistical control. Psychosom Med 2004; 66 (6): 868-75 (Pubitemid 39552870)
90. McNamee R. Regression modelling and other methods to control confounding. Occup Environ Med 2005; 62 (7): 500-6 (Pubitemid 40904845)
91. Müllner M, Matthews H, Altman DG. Reporting on statistical methods to adjust for confounding: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 2002; 136 (2): 122-6 (Pubitemid 34073936)
92. Nieto FJ, Coresh J. Adjusting survival curves for confounders: a review and a new method. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143 (10): 1059-68 (Pubitemid 26140334)
93. Fewell Z, Hernán MA, Wolfe F et al. Controlling for time-dependent confounding using marginal structural models. Stata J 2004; 4 (4): 402-20
94. Howe CJ, Cole SR. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data by Timothy L. Lash, Matthew P. Fox, and Aliza K. Fink. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 170 (10): 1316-7
95. De Koning JS, Klazinga NS, Koudstaal PJ et al. The role of confounding by indication' in assessing the effect of quality of care on disease outcomes in general practice: results of a case-control study. BMC Health Serv Res 2005; 5: 10
96. Normand SLT, Sykora K, Li P et al. Readers guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies. 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding. BMJ 2005; 330 (7498): 1021-3
97. Cox E, Martin BC, van Staa T et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report. Part II. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1053-61
98. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Confounding and selection bias in case control studies. Washington: EPA; 1981
99. Kurth T, Walker AM, Glynn RJ et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163 (3): 262-70 (Pubitemid 43145754)
100. Lunceford JK, Davidian M. Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat Med 2004; 23 (19): 2937-60 (Pubitemid 39200133)
101. D'Agostino RB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998; 17 (19): 2265-81
102. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA et al. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med 2005; 24 (10): 1563-78 (Pubitemid 40716354)
103. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med 2006; 25 (12): 2084-106 (Pubitemid 43950281)
104. Battistin E, Chesher A. Measurement error bias and propensity score methods 2003. http://www.wtw.unimi.it/brucchi/UserFiles/File/battistin.pdf
105. Qu Y, Lipkovich I. Propensity score estimation with missing values using a multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) approach. Stat Med 2008; 28 (9): 1402-14
106. Kwiatkowski F, Slim K, Verrelle P et al. Le score de propension: intérêt et limites. Bull Cancer 2007; 94 (7-8): 680-6
107. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J et al. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol 2005; 162 (3): 279-89 (Pubitemid 41373532)
108. Jo B, Stuart EA. On the use of propensity scores in principal causal effect estimation. Stat Med 2009; 28 (23): 2857-75
109. Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research: pitfalls and prospects. Med Care Res Rev 2010; 67 (5): 528-54
110. Månsson R, Joffe MM, Sun W et al. On the estimation and use of propensity scores in case-control and case-cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 166 (3): 332-9 (Pubitemid 47216807)
111. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, McCandless L, Richardson S, Best NG. Propensity score adjustment for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. NCRM Working Paper Series 2008; (2)
112. McCandless LC, Gustafson P, Levy A. Bayesian sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in observational studies. Stat Med 2007; 26 (11): 2331-47 (Pubitemid 46730252)
113. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ et al. Performance of propensity score calibration: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165 (10): 1110-8 (Pubitemid 47233723)
114. Stürmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J et al. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 172 (7): 843-54
115. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT et al. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158 (3): 280-7 (Pubitemid 36944422)
116. Baser O. Too much ado about instrumental variable approach: is the cure worse than the disease? Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1201-9
117. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Preference-based instrumental variable methods for the estimation of treatment effects: assessing validity and interpreting results. Int J Biostat 2007; 3 (1): 14
118. Posner MA, Ash AS, Freund KM et al. Comparing standard regression, propensity score matching, and instrumental variables methods for determining the influence of mammography on stage of diagnosis. Health Serv Outcomes Res Meth 2001; 2 (3-4): 279-90
119. Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ et al. Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 169 (3): 273-84
120. Lalani T, Cabell CH, Benjamin DK et al. Analysis of the impact of early surgery on in-hospital mortality of native valve endocarditis: use of propensity score and instrumental variable methods to adjust for treatment-selection bias. Circulation 2010; 121 (8): 1005-13
121. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE et al. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias. Effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 2007; 297 (3): 278-85
122. Chen Y, Briesacher BA. Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64 (6): 687-700
123. Auzerie J, Brossel R, Charlemagne A et al. Itudes observationnelles en pharmaco-épidémiologie: retour d'expériences et propositions pour une approche pragmatique de la conception, de la conduite et de l'analyse des études. Lettre Pharmacol 2009; 23 (1): 20-8
124. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report. Part I. Value Health 2009; 12 (8): 1044-52
125. Douma KFL, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJM et al. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23 (2): 162-8 (Pubitemid 46642723)
126. Manchikanti L, Falco FJE, Boswell MV et al. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research. Part I. Basic considerations. Pain Physician 2010; 13 (1): E23-E54
127. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1998; 317 (7167): 1185-90 (Pubitemid 28488507)
128. Kunz R. Randomized trials and observational studies: still mostly similar results, still crucial differences. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (3): 207-8
129. Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W et al. Observational studies should be considered for inclusion in reviews of comparative effectiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64 (11): 1178-86
130. Sørensen HT, Lash TL, Rothman KJ. Beyond randomized controlled trials: a critical comparison of trials with nonrandomized studies. Hepatology 2006; 44 (5): 1075-82 (Pubitemid 44748358)
131. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (25): 1878-86 (Pubitemid 30419053)
132. Britton A, McKee M, Black N et al., Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2 (13): i-iv, 1-124
133. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (25): 1887-92 (Pubitemid 30419054)
134. Elwood JM. Critical appraisal of epidemiological studies and clinical trials. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007
135. Dreyer NA, Tunis SR, Berger M et al. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff 2010; 29 (10): 1818-25
136. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM et al. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4 (34): 1-154
137. Tansella M, Thornicroft G, Barbui C et al. Seven criteria for improving effectiveness trials in psychiatry. Psychol Med 2006; 36 (5): 711-20
138. Hutcheon JA, Chiolero A, Hanley JA. Random measurement error and regression dilution bias. BMJ 2010; 340: c2289
139. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 2009; 374 (9695): 1097-104
140. Battista RN, Lance JM, Lehoux P et al. Health technology assessment and the regulation of medical devices and procedures in Quebec. Synergy, collusion, or collision? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15 (3): 593-601 (Pubitemid 29466190)
141. Cohen D, Billingsley M. Europeans are left to their own devices. BMJ 2011; 342: d2748
142. Fraser AG, Daubert JC, van de Werf F et al. Clinical evaluation of cardiovascular devices: principles, problems, and proposals for European regulatory reform. Report of a policy conference of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2011; 32 (13): 1673-86
143. Pietzsch JB, Paté-Cornell ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (1): 36-44 (Pubitemid 351158541)
144. Feldman MD, Petersen AJ, Karliner LS et al. Who is responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices? The role of independent technology assessment. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23 (Suppl 1): 57-63 (Pubitemid 350295392)
145. HAS. Parcours du dispositif médical. Guide pratique. Saint-Denis La Plaine: HAS; 2009 http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/ pdf/2009-12/guide-pratique-dm.pdf
146. Siebert M, Clauss LC, Carlisle M et al. Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. What must be considered. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18 (3): 733-40
147. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009; 374 (9695): 1105-12