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
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Systematic reviews of nonrandomized clinical studies in the orthopaedic literature

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

UNSPECIFIED (2004) Systematic reviews of nonrandomized clinical studies in the orthopaedic literature. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH (427). pp. 249-257. ISSN 0009-921X

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000137558.97346....

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 > RC Internal medicine
R Medicine > RD Surgery
Journal or Publication Title: CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH
Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
ISSN: 0009-921X
Date: October 2004
Number: 427
Number of Pages: 9
Page Range: pp. 249-257
Identification Number: 10.1097/01.blo.0000137558.97346.fb
Publication Status: Published
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/7912

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
twitter

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