Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Abstract
To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials.
Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period.
Citation impact
- FWCI
- 83.89
- Percentile
- 100%
- References
- 332
Authors
8Topics & keywords
- Medicine
- Systematic review
- Randomized controlled trial
- Psychological intervention
- Blinding
- MEDLINE
- Meta-analysis
- Internal validity
- Good health and well-being