Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 3 , Pages 238-245 , March 2010

Meta-analysis of well-designed nonrandomized comparative studies of surgical procedures is as good as randomized controlled trials

  • Ned S. Abraham

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Medicine, The Coffs Harbour Health Campus, The University of New South Wales, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia
    • The Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney South West Area Health Service, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Coffs Harbour Campus, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, POB 2244, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia. Tel: +612-6652-0411; fax: +612-6652-0400.
    • ,
  • Christopher J. Byrne

      Affiliations

    • The Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney South West Area Health Service, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
    • ,
  • Jane M. Young

      Affiliations

    • The Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney South West Area Health Service, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
    • ,
  • Michael J. Solomon

      Affiliations

    • The Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney South West Area Health Service, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
    • Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia

,Accepted 17 April 2009.

References 

  1. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1–154
  2. Abraham NS, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1111–1124
  3. Abraham NS, Byrne CJ, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Meta-analysis of non-randomised comparative studies of the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. ANZ J Surg 2007;77:508-16.
  4. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved?. Dis Colon Rect. 1993;36:43–48
  5. Liddle J, Williamson M, Irwig L. Methods for evaluating research guideline evidence, improving health care and outcomes. Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Health; 1996;
  6. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358–1361
  7. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayers RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412
  8. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (Minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73:712–716
  9. Sample size for sensitivity. Power/sample size calculator. Available at: http://stat.ubc.ca/∼rollin/stats/ssize/b2.html. (Accessed December 2007).
  10. Petitti DB. Of babies and bathwater. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:779–782
  11. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. New Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878–1886
  12. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–1892
  13. 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;2:1–124
  14. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. Br Med J. 1998;317:1185–1190
  15. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H. Randomisation versus historic controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982;72:233–240
  16. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:477–484
  17. Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group of the Laparoscopic Colectomy Trial . A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. New Engl J Med. 2004;350:2050–2059
  18. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–1726
  19. Braga M, Vignali A, Zuliani W, Frasson M, Di Serio C, Di Carlo V, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2005;242:890–896

PII: S0895-4356(09)00127-9

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.005

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 3 , Pages 238-245 , March 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution