Background Different tools exist for assessing risk of bias of intervention studies for
systematic reviews. We present a tool for assessing risk of bias across both randomized and …

There is a growing appreciation that our current approach to clinical research leaves
important gaps in evidence from the perspective of patients, clinicians, and payers wishing …

Background Clinical researchers have often preferred to use a fixed effects model for the
primary interpretation of a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity is usually assessed via the well …

Objective To compare effect estimates of randomised clinical trials that use routinely
collected data (RCD-RCT) for outcome ascertainment with traditional trials not using …

The quality assessment of non-randomized studies is an important component of a thorough
meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Low quality studies can lead to a distortion of the …

The Magic of Randomization Nonrandomized observational analyses have been promoted
as alternatives to randomized clinical trials. However, randomization ensures balance …

It is now widely accepted that in most situations, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and
systematic reviews are the most reliable methods of determining the effects of treatment. Yet …

In 2005, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established the Effective Health
Care (EHC) Program. The EHC Program aims to provide understandable and actionable …

Objectives To determine the prevalence of poor interpretation practices, such as conflating
evidence of absence with absence of evidence and over-emphasis of statistical non …

Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within
meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 …