Appropriate design of research and statistical analyses: Observational versus experimental studies

Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 105-107

  Kang, Hyun ^a  

^a Chung Ang University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; INTUBATION; LUNG CANCER; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION; RESEARCH; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; VALIDITY;

EID: 84883782903     PISSN: 20056419     EISSN: 20057563     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2013.65.2.105     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Gray-Donald K, Kramer MS. Causality inference in observational vs. experimental studies. An empirical comparison. Am J Epidemiol 1988; 127: 885-92.
2. Oh SC. Possible statistical problems of the original paper titled "Predictors of difficult intubation": a bad start. Korean J Anesthesiol 2013; 65: 184-5.
3. Byar DP, Simon RM, Friedewald WT, Schlesselman JJ, DeMets DL, Ellenberg JH, et al. Randomized clinical trials. Perspectives on some recent ideas. N Engl J Med 1976; 295: 74-80.
4. Burgess DC, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Baseline data in clinical trials. Med J Aust 2003; 179: 105-7.
5. Seo SH, Lee JG, Yu SB, Kim DS, Ryu SJ, Kim KH. Predictors of difficult intubation defined by the intubation difficulty scale (IDS): predictive value of 7 airway assessment factors. Korean J Anesthesiol 2012; 63: 491-7.
6. Morshed S, Tornetta P 3rd, Bhandari M. Analysis of observational studies: a guide to understanding statistical methods. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 Suppl 3: 50-60.
7. Edwards AW. The measure of association in a 2×2 table. J Roy Statist Soc 1963; Series A 126: 109-14.