reviewHealth Technology AssessmentSep 1, 2003DIAMOND OA

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies

PubMed
Indexed incrossrefdoajpubmed

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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

2,923
total citations
FWCI
83.89
Percentile
100%
References
332
Citations per year

Authors

8

Topics & keywords

Keywords
  • Medicine
  • Systematic review
  • Randomized controlled trial
  • Psychological intervention
  • Blinding
  • MEDLINE
  • Meta-analysis
  • Internal validity
UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • Good health and well-being
No related works found for this paper.

Funding