Skip to content

Assessing the Credibility of Findings From Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
JournalJAMA Cardiology
Early online date1 Aug 2018
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 8 Jun 2018
DateE-pub ahead of print (current) - 1 Aug 2018

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the gold standard in the assessment of health interventions. However, evidence from RCTs is often unavailable. Randomized clinical trials may also be impractical, for example when the outcome of interest is so rare or so long term that appropriately sized studies would be too expensive. In addition, RCTs require clinical equipoise, and withholding established treatments may be considered unethical even if evidence for the effects of these treatments is limited. Finally, RCTs may be underway but not ready for reporting for some years.

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

  • ROBINS-I JAMA Cardiology Viewpoint

    Accepted author manuscript, 30.5 KB, Word document

  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via JAMA at https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2018.2267 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 254 KB, PDF document

    Licence: Other

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups