BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine requires careful appraisal of published data derived from experimental and clinical studies. Based on classification of biomedical research reports, evidence levels can be determined and recommendations for therapeutic decisions can be made. METHODS: A classification system for clinical studies was developed. It was evaluated in classifying the reports published in Der Ophthalmologe during 2003-2004 (study design: descriptive cross-sectional study, case series). RESULTS: In the 2-year interval, 70 longitudinal and 95 cross-sectional studies were published. The vast majority of the longitudinal studies were interventional cohort studies. Not considering case reports, 73% of the original articles were longitudinal prospective studies, 1% were retrospective (case-control) studies, and 26% were cross-sectional studies. CONCLUSIONS: The study design of all published articles could be classified using the classification system. This classification system proves to be applicable in the context of clinical studies in ophthalmology and may be helpful in the process of critical appraisal of the literature and synthesis of clinical evidence and an evidence-based recommendation.
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine requires careful appraisal of published data derived from experimental and clinical studies. Based on classification of biomedical research reports, evidence levels can be determined and recommendations for therapeutic decisions can be made. METHODS: A classification system for clinical studies was developed. It was evaluated in classifying the reports published in Der Ophthalmologe during 2003-2004 (study design: descriptive cross-sectional study, case series). RESULTS: In the 2-year interval, 70 longitudinal and 95 cross-sectional studies were published. The vast majority of the longitudinal studies were interventional cohort studies. Not considering case reports, 73% of the original articles were longitudinal prospective studies, 1% were retrospective (case-control) studies, and 26% were cross-sectional studies. CONCLUSIONS: The study design of all published articles could be classified using the classification system. This classification system proves to be applicable in the context of clinical studies in ophthalmology and may be helpful in the process of critical appraisal of the literature and synthesis of clinical evidence and an evidence-based recommendation.