Literature DB >> 3276752

Comparison of predictions based on observational data with the results of randomized controlled clinical trials of coronary artery bypass surgery.

M A Hlatky1, R M Califf, F E Harrell, K L Lee, D B Mark, D B Pryor.   

Abstract

Clinical decisions are most secure when based on findings from several large randomized clinical trials, but relevant randomized trial data are often unavailable. Analyses using clinical data bases might provide useful information if statistical methods can adequately correct for the lack of randomization. To test this approach, the findings of the three major randomized trials of coronary bypass surgery were compared with predictions of multivariable statistical models derived from observations in the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Databank. Clinical characteristics of patients at Duke University Medical Center who met eligibility requirements for each major randomized trial were used in the models to predict 5 year survival rates expected for medical and surgical therapy in each randomized trial. Model predictions agreed well with randomized trial results and were within the 95% confidence limits of the observed survival rates in 24 (92%) of 26 clinical subgroups. The overall correlation between predicted and observed survival rates was good (Spearman coefficient 0.73, p less than 0.0001). These results suggest that carefully performed analyses of observational data can complement the results of randomized trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3276752     DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(88)90086-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  26 in total

1.  The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making.

Authors:  J A Mauskopf; J E Paul; D M Grant; A Stergachis
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Computer-assisted test interpretation: considerations in patient care.

Authors:  S D Hillson; D P Connelly
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  The best type of trial.

Authors:  J A Chris Delaney
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-06-08       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  The rationale for a spine registry.

Authors:  C Röder; U Müller; M Aebi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  New technologies in cancer and their assessment. The clinical surgeon's point of view.

Authors:  Javier Escrig Sos; David Martínez Ramos
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 3.405

6.  Pulmonary venous atrial obstruction after the Senning procedure: relief by catheter balloon dilatation.

Authors:  J D Coulson; R B Jennings; D H Johnson
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1990-08

7.  Predicting therapeutic benefit from myocardial revascularization procedures: are measurements of both resting left ventricular ejection fraction and stress-induced myocardial ischemia necessary?

Authors:  Rory Hachamovitch; Alan Rozanski; Sean W Hayes; Louise E J Thomson; Guido Germano; John D Friedman; Ishac Cohen; Daniel S Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.952

8.  Rationale, development and implementation of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry-Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  Laurie J Morrison; Graham Nichol; Thomas D Rea; Jim Christenson; Clifton W Callaway; Shannon Stephens; Ronald G Pirrallo; Dianne L Atkins; Daniel P Davis; Ahamed H Idris; Craig Newgard
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 5.262

9.  Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care.

Authors:  N Black
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-05-11

10.  "Virtual" clinical trials: case control experiments utilizing a health services research workstation.

Authors:  M G Weiner; A L Hillman
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  1998
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.