Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 3 , Pages 254-264 , March 2006

Simulation of the Syst-Eur randomized control trial using a primary care electronic medical record was feasible

  • Richard L. Tannen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    • Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: 215-898-2270; fax: 215-573-0280.
    • ,
  • Mark G. Weiner

      Affiliations

    • Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    • ,
  • Sue M. Marcus

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

,Accepted 20 August 2005.

References 

  1. McNeil BJ. Hidden barriers to improvement in the quality of care. Shattuck Lecture. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1612–1620
  2. Concato J, Horwitz RI. Beyond randomised versus observational studies. Lancet. 2004;363:1660–1661
  3. Fisher RA. The design of experiments. 1st ed.. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1935;
  4. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982;72:233–240
  5. Chalmers RC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358–1361
  6. Ioannidis JPA, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286:821–830
  7. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:i–iv,1–124
  8. McKee M, Britton A, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. Methods in health services research. BMJ. 1999;319:312–315
  9. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878–1886
  10. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–1892
  11. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS. A systematic review of comparisons of effect-sizes derived from randomized and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–154
  12. CASS principal investigators and associates . Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery: comparability of entry characteristics and survival in randomized patients and nonrandomized patients meeting randomization criteria. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;3:114–128
  13. Horwitz RI, Viscoli CM, Clemens JD, Sadock RT. Developing improved observational methods for evaluating therapeutic effectiveness. Am J Med. 1990;89:630–638
  14. Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Rosner B, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin use and the risk of cardiovascular disease. J Engl J Med. 1996;335:453–461
  15. Grodstein F, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Speizer FE, Stampfel MJ. A prospective, observational study of postmenopausal hormone therapy and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:933–941
  16. Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in health postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321–333
  17. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215–1218
  18. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1998;317:1185–1190
  19. Popcock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomized trials or observational tribulations?. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1907–1909
  20. McMahon AD. Observation and experiment with the efficacy of drugs: a warning example from a cohort of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and ulcer-healing drug users. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:557–562
  21. MacMahon S, Collins R. Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity. II: observational studies. Lancet. 2001;357:455–462
  22. Califf RM, Pryor DB, Greenfield JC. Beyond randomized clinical trials: applying clinical experience in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1986;74:1191–1194
  23. Sacks HS. Observational studies and randomized trials. [Letter] N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1195
  24. Ioannidis JPA, Haidich AB, Lau J. Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?. BMJ. 2001;322:879–880
  25. Rodriguez LAG, Perez-Gutthann S, Jick S. The UK General Practice Research Data Base. In:  Strom BL editors. Pharmacoepidemiology. 3rd ed.. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2000;p. 375–385
  26. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhager WH, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Lancet. 1997;350:757–764
  27. Office for National Statistics . Morbidity and treatment data from general practice 1998 (England and Wales). Health Stat Q. 2000;8:81–86
  28. Jick H, Jick SS, Derby LE. Validation of information recorded on general practitioner based computerised data resource in the United Kingdom. BMJ. 1991;302:766–768
  29. Jick H, Terris BZ, Derby LE, Jick SS. Further validation of information recorded on a general practitioner based computerised data resource in the United Kingdom. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1992;1:347–349
  30. Van Staa T, Abenhaim L. The quality of information recorded on a UK database of primary care records: a study of hospitalisations due to hypoglycemia and other conditions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1994;3:15–21
  31. Hollowell J. General Practice Research Database: scope and quality of data. London: Office for Population Censuses and Surveys; 1994;
  32. Hansell A, Hollowell J, Nichols T, McNiece R, Strachan D. Use of General Practice Research Database for respiratory epidemiology: a comparison with the 4th Morbidity Survey in General Practice (MSGP4). Thorax. 1999;54:413–419
  33. Marcus SM. Estimating the long-term effects of Head Start. In:  Oden S,  Schweinhart L,  Weikart D,  with Marcus SM,  Xie Y editor. Into adulthood: a study of the effects of Head Start. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Press; 2000;p. 179–200
  34. Cox DR. Analysis of binary data. London: Chapman and Hall; 1970;
  35. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55
  36. D'Agostino RB, Rubin DB. Estimating and using propensity scores with partially missing data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2000;95:749–759
  37. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516–524
  38. Moses LE, Mosteller F, Buehler JH. Comparing results of large clinical trials to those of meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2002;21:793–800
  39. SHEP Cooperative Research Group . Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA. 1991;265:3255–3264

PII: S0895-4356(05)00310-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.008

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 3 , Pages 254-264 , March 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution