Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1082-1090 , October 2010

Reported effects in randomized controlled trials were compared with those of nonrandomized trials in cholecystectomy

  • Dirk Müeller

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), University Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
    • Department of Business Administration and Health Care Management, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Street 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49-0-221/989-57-0; fax: +49-221-98957-30.
    • ,
  • Stefan Sauerland

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), University Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
    • ,
  • Edmund A.M. Neugebauer

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), University Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany
    • ,
  • Marc Immenroth

      Affiliations

    • Ethicon Endo-Surgery (Europe) GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany

,Accepted 14 December 2009.

References 

  1. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet. 2002;359:57–61
  2. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical. Stat Med. 1989;8:441–454
  3. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Stat Med. 1989;8:455–466
  4. Guyatt GH, DiCenso A, Farewell V, Willan A, Griffith L. Randomized trials versus observational studies in adolescent pregnancy prevention. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:167–174
  5. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358–1361
  6. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365:82–93
  7. Mant D. Can randomised trials inform clinical decisions about individual patients?. Lancet. 1999;353:743–746
  8. McPherson K. The best and the enemy of the good: randomised controlled trials, uncertainty, and assessing the role of patient choice in medical decision making. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1994;48:6–15
  9. Russell RC. Surgical research. Lancet. 1996;347:1480;author reply 1482
  10. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215–1218
  11. McLeod R. Randomized, controlled trials: is there a role for them in surgery?. Ann Surg. 2006;244:684–685
  12. Kunz R, Vist G, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000012
  13. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878–1886
  14. 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
  15. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:iii–iv1–146
  16. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii–x1–173
  17. Audige L, Hanson B, Kopjar B. Issues in the planning and conduct of non-randomised studies. Injury. 2006;37:340–348
  18. Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D, Barnhart K. A simulation using data from a primary care practice database closely replicated the women's health initiative trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:686–695
  19. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Spangenberger W, Dietrich A, Lefering R. Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group. Br J Surg. 1991;78:150–154
  20. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1073–1078
  21. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet. 1996;347:989–994
  22. Ros A, Gustafsson L, Krook H, Nordgren CE, Thorell A, Wallin G, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Ann Surg. 2001;234:741–749
  23. Adamsen S, Hansen OH, Funch-Jensen P, Schulze S, Stage JG, Wara P. Bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective nationwide series. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184:571–578
  24. Targarona EM, Marco C, Balague C, Rodriguez J, Cugat E, Hoyuela C, et al. How, when, and why bile duct injury occurs. A comparison between open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:322–326
  25. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Retrospective clinical studies in surgery: potentials and pitfalls. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2002;27:117–121
  26. 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–iv1–124
  27. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 1998;352:609–613
  28. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:982–989
  29. 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
  30. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(12):1–79
  31. Woodfield JC, Beshay NM, Pettigrew RA, Plank LD, van Rij AM. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of physical status as a predictor of wound infection. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77:738–741
  32. Petitti DB. Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001;20:3625–3633
  33. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–560
  34. Keus F, de Vries J, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ. Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy: health status in a blind randomised trial. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1649–1659
  35. McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, Ross S, Anderson JR, Morran CG, et al. Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1994;343:135–138
  36. Furlan AD, Tomlinson G, Jadad AA, Bombardier C. Methodological quality and homogeneity influenced agreement between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of the same intervention for back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:209–231
  37. Kunz R. Randomized trials and observational studies: still mostly similar results, still crucial differences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:207–208
  38. Vandenbroucke JP. Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e67
  39. Martin RC, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2002;235:803–813
  40. Ioannidis JP, 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
  41. Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg. 2006;244:668–676

PII: S0895-4356(10)00020-X

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.009

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1082-1090 , October 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution