Literature DB >> 7723466

Measuring effectiveness. What to expect without a randomized control group.

R B D'Agostino1, H Kwan.   

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials or studies are often considered the ideal way to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment compared to a control. In such a study, the randomization procedure ensures that the subjects receiving the treatment and control are equal with respect to all conditions except for receiving the treatment or the control. Differences found by statistical comparisons of the results of such a study can be attributed to the effect of the treatment or how much the treatment differs from the control when all other things are held constant. Randomized controlled trials are not always possible, and even when possible they are often performed with such restrictions that they do not provide the true measure of the effectiveness of the treatment in the "real world" or under "conditions of usual practice." This article reviews the use of nonrandomized studies to measure effectiveness when a randomized control group is not available. Various types of nonrandomized studies are reviewed, along with their advantages and disadvantages. Often, these studies require statistical adjustments such as matching or covariance analysis to adjust for inequalities or to remove biases between the treatment and control groups; these are reviewed as well.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7723466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  17 in total

1.  Economic evaluation of antibacterials in the treatment of acute sinusitis.

Authors:  C Laurier; J Lachaine; M Ducharme
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  [Research on health outcome].

Authors:  X Badia Llach; L Lizán Tudela
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 1.137

3.  Identifying performance indicators for family practice: assessing levels of consensus.

Authors:  Jan Barnsley; Whitney Berta; Rhonda Cockerill; Judith MacPhail; Eugene Vayda
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Evaluating medical effectiveness for the california health benefits review program.

Authors:  Harold S Luft; Karen M Rappaport; Edward H Yelin; Wade M Aubry
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Which Propensity Score Method Best Reduces Confounder Imbalance? An Example From a Retrospective Evaluation of a Childhood Obesity Intervention.

Authors:  Krista Schroeder; Haomiao Jia; Arlene Smaldone
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  Adverse outcome analyses of observational data: assessing cardiovascular risk in HIV disease.

Authors:  V A Triant; F Josephson; C G Rochester; K N Althoff; K Marcus; R Munk; C Cooper; R B D'Agostino; D Costagliola; C A Sabin; P L Williams; S Hughes; W S Post; N Chandra-Strobos; G Guaraldi; S S Young; R Obenchain; R Bedimo; V Miller; J Strobos
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Enhancing continuity of information: essential components of a referral document.

Authors:  Whitney Berta; Jan Barnsley; Jeff Bloom; Rhonda Cockerill; Dave Davis; Liisa Jaakkimainen; Anne Marie Mior; Yves Talbot; Eugene Vayda
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 8.  Enhancing continuity of information: essential components of consultation reports.

Authors:  Whitney Berta; Jan Barnsley; Jeff Bloom; Rhonda Cockerill; Dave Davis; Liisa Jaakkimainen; Anne Marie Mior; Yves Talbot; Eugene Vayda
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.275

9.  Olanzapine versus risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia : a comparison of costs among Texas Medicaid recipients.

Authors:  Karen L Rascati; Michael T Johnsrud; M Lynn Crismon; Maureen J Lage; Beth L Barber
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 10.  Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin H Slovis; Thomas A Nahass; Hojjat Salmasian; Gilad Kuperman; David K Vawdrey
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.