Literature DB >> 8340208

A new form of meta-analysis for combining results from randomized clinical trials and medical-practice databases.

J Droitcour, G Silberman, E Chelimsky.   

Abstract

Cross-design synthesis is a new (and still evolving) strategy for providing quantitative results that capture the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of different kinds of research. The strategy, which is being developed to answer questions about the effects of treatment in medical practice, includes (a) identifying complementary research designs and studies conducted according to those designs; (b) completing an in-depth assessment of each study with respect to the chief potential bias(es) that are associated with its design; (c) making "secondary adjustments" of study results to correct known biases; and (d) developing synthesis frameworks and models that will minimize the impact of hidden biases.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8340208     DOI: 10.1017/s0266462300004694

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  6 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of rate ratios with differential follow-up by treatment arm: inferring comparative effectiveness of medical devices.

Authors:  Lauren M Kunz; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Bisphosphonates and osteoporotic fractures: a cross-design synthesis of results among compliant/persistent postmenopausal women in clinical practice versus randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  M M Wilkes; R J Navickis; W W Chan; E M Lewiecki
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Authors:  Quan Nha Hong; Pierre Pluye; Mathieu Bujold; Maggy Wassef
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-23

Review 4.  Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  A E Ades; Mark Sculpher; Alex Sutton; Keith Abrams; Nicola Cooper; Nicky Welton; Guobing Lu
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review.

Authors:  Monika Kastner; Andrea C Tricco; Charlene Soobiah; Erin Lillie; Laure Perrier; Tanya Horsley; Vivian Welch; Elise Cogo; Jesmin Antony; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 6.  Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.

Authors:  Thomas P A Debray; Karel G M Moons; Gert van Valkenhoef; Orestis Efthimiou; Noemi Hummel; Rolf H H Groenwold; Johannes B Reitsma
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 5.273

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.