Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies

Deeks J J, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden A J, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al
Record ID 32003001083
English
Authors' objectives:

In the absence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), healthcare practitioners and policy-makers rely on non-randomised studies to provide evidence of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, there is controversy over the validity of non-randomised evidence, related to the existence and magnitude of selection bias. This study aims to consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies.

Authors' recommendations: Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Six tools were considered potentially suitable for use in systematic reviews, but each requires revision to cover all relevant quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies which are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical.
Authors' methods: Systematic review, empirical study
Details
Project Status: Completed
URL for project: http://www.hta.ac.uk/1117
Year Published: 2003
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: England, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
  • Clinical Trials as Topic
  • Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Contact
Organisation Name: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Contact Email: journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Copyright: 2009 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.