Literature DB >> 12897592

Hierarchy of evidence: from case reports to randomized controlled trials.

Brian Brighton1, Mohit Bhandari, Paul Tornetta, David T Felson.   

Abstract

In the hierarchy of research designs, the results of randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence. Randomization is the only method for controlling for known and unknown prognostic factors between two comparison groups. Lack of randomization predisposes a study to potentially important imbalances in baseline characteristics between two study groups. There is a hierarchy of evidence, with randomized controlled trials at the top, controlled observational studies in the middle, and uncontrolled studies and opinion at the bottom. This hierarchy has not been supported in two recent publications in the New England Journal of Medicine which identified nonsignificant differences in results between randomized, controlled trials, and observational studies. The current authors provide an approach to organizing published research on the basis of study design, a hierarchy of evidence, a set of principles and tools that help clinicians distinguish ignorance of evidence from real scientific uncertainty, distinguish evidence from unsubstantiated opinions, and ultimately provide better patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12897592     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000079323.41006.12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  27 in total

1.  Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part III. Overcoming operational challenges in the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Elena Losina; James Wright; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Consensus-based recommendations for case report in Chinese medicine (CARC).

Authors:  Shu-Fei Fu; Chung-Wah Cheng; Li Zhang; Linda Li-Dan Zhong; Wai Kun; Jia Lin; Bo-Li Zhang; Yong-Yan Wang; Hong-Cai Shang; Zhao-Xiang Bian
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 1.978

3.  The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study.

Authors:  Martha R Harris
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-01

Review 4.  Research approaches to describe the mechanisms of injuries in sport: limitations and possibilities.

Authors:  T Krosshaug; T E Andersen; O-E O Olsen; G Myklebust; R Bahr
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 13.800

5.  Utilizing case reports to build awareness of rare complications in critical care.

Authors:  Rachel R Walden; Rebecca N Jerome; Richard S Miller
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2007-01

6.  To establish a body of evidence on safety for postmarketing Chinese medicine: A new research paradigm.

Authors:  Xing Liao; Yan-Ming Xie; Nicola Robinson; Yong-Yan Wang
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 1.978

7.  In response to: Cook C. How about a little love for non-thrust manipulation?

Authors: 
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-05

Review 8.  Establishing a successful clinical research program.

Authors:  Daniele Scoglio; Alessandro Fichera
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2014-06

9.  Can orthopedic trials change practice?

Authors:  Bernadette G Dijkman; Bauke W Kooistra; Julia Pemberton; Sheila Sprague; Beate P Hanson; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Quality of evidence about effectiveness of treatments for metastatic uveal melanoma.

Authors:  James J Augsburger; Zélia M Corrêa; Adeel H Shaikh
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2008
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.