Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login
  • Admin

Systematic reviews of nonrandomized clinical studies in the orthopaedic literature

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Audigé, L., Bhandari, M., Griffin, Damian R., Middleton, P. and Reeves, B. C. (2004) Systematic reviews of nonrandomized clinical studies in the orthopaedic literature. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (427). pp. 249-257. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000137558.97346.fb

An open access version can be found in:
  • Publisher
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000137558.97346.fb

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

We systematically reviewed systematic reviews of surgical orthopaedic interventions published between 1996 and 2001 to document when and how nonrandomized studies were included. From more than 10,000 citations examined in various electronic databases, 58 orthopaedic systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion based on specific criteria. Thirty of these (52%) included nonrandomized studies, 15 of which found no randomized controlled trials. Systematic reviews were more likely to include randomized controlled trials if nondistinguishable operations were compared (if participants could be blinded). Only six of the systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies (20%) assessed the quality of primary studies. Heterogeneity of studies was a major concern. In 21 of the systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies (70%), data for groups treated similarly were pooled across studies, and outcomes for pooled groups were compared. The conclusions of systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies are weakened by the limitations of nonrandomized study designs. The absence of established methods for including nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews, and consequently variability in the methods adopted, also limits the comparability of such reviews. Therefore the findings of systematic reviews that include nonrandomized studies should be interpreted with caution.

Item Type: Journal Item
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Clinical Trials Unit
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Journal or Publication Title: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
ISSN: 0009-921X
Official Date: 14 July 2004
Dates:
DateEvent
14 July 2004Published
Number: 427
Page Range: pp. 249-257
DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000137558.97346.fb
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Open Access Version:
  • Publisher

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

Email us: wrap@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us