PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15353903

Guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies.

B C Reeves·W Gaus
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Non-randomised studies (NRSs) are useful because they allow interventions to be evaluated that are difficult to investigate by randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, NRSs are more susceptible to bias. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was established to ensure that researchers report features of RCTs that must be considered when appraising their quality. CONSORT has improved the reporting of key information, highlighting missing key information for users. Researchers have a responsibility to report essential information that allows users to assess the susceptibility of NRS to selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. This paper considers criteria for reporting cohort studies: the rationale behind the CONSORT criteria for reporting of RCTs will be applied to cohort studies. Many of the criteria need no modification but application of others raise difficult issues for cohort studies, e.g.: description and standardisation of control and intervention treatments; description of the method of allocation; choice of prognostic factors to be collected; distinguishing between intended and provided treatments; collection of data on adverse and longterm outcomes; establishing a priori plans for analysis.

Explore related subjects

BiasGuidelines as TopicHumansPublishingQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSelection BiasJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B C Reeves, W Gaus. 2004. Guidelines for reporting non-randomised studies.. https://doi.org/10.1159/000080576

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2007

A residuals-based transition model for longitudinal analysis with estimation in the presence of missing data.

We propose a transition model for analysing data from complex longitudinal studies. Because missing values are practically unavoidable in large longitudinal studies, we also present a two-stage imputation method for handling general patterns of missing values on both the outcome and the covariates by combining multiple imputation with stochastic regression imputation. Our model is a time-varying auto-regression on the past innovations (residuals), and it can be used in cases where general dynamics must be taken into account, and where the model selection is important. The entire estimation process was carried out using available procedures in statistical packages such as SAS and S-PLUS. To illustrate the viability of the proposed model and the two-stage imputation method, we analyse data collected in an epidemiological study that focused on various factors relating to childhood growth. Finally, we present a simulation study to investigate the behaviour of our two-stage imputation procedure.

Bias↗