4.5 Editorial Material

An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions

期刊

RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 1-11

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1068

关键词

systematic review; non-randomised study; benefit; harm

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office [HSRU2] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [UD99999927, MC_U105285807] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_U105285807] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Methods need to be further developed to include non-randomised studies (NRS) in systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. NRS are often required to answer questions about harms and interventions for which evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not available. Methods used to review randomised controlled trials may be inappropriate or insufficient for NRS. Aim and methods: A workshop was convened to discuss relevant methodological issues. Participants were invited from important stakeholder constituencies, including methods and review groups of the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations, the Cochrane Editorial Unit and organisations that commission reviews and make health policy decisions. The aim was to discuss methods for reviewing evidence when including NRS and to formulate methodological guidance for review authors. Workshop format: The workshop was structured around four sessions on topics considered in advance to be most critical: (i) study designs and bias; (ii) confounding and meta-analysis; (iii) selective reporting; and (iv) applicability. These sessions were scheduled between introductory and concluding sessions. Summary: This is the first of six papers and provides an overview. Subsequent papers describe the discussions and conclusions from the four main sessions (papers 2 to 5) and summarise the proposed guidance into lists of issues for review authors to consider (paper 6). Copyright (C) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据