Systematic Reviews: New Challenges Relating to Non-randomised Studies and Diagnostic Test Accuracy_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Summertown Pavilion Middle Way, Oxford, UK OX2 7LG;

Corresponding author：

Keywords：

Cochrane Collaboration; Systematic reviews; Non-randomised studies; Diagnostic tests

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions are now quite common. There are currently more than 2 600 full Cochrane reviews in The Cochrane Library, with protocols published for 1 600 more. There are also thousands of systematic reviews published in other journals. However, the science of systematic reviewing is still relatively young. Most of the reviews available today rely on randomised trials, but there are also some reviews of non-randomised trials and of diagnostic test accuracy and these may become more common in the next few years. In this essay, I discuss some of the challenges of doing these newer types of systematic review, and show how experience gained in the last few decades of systematic reviews of randomised trials might help to meet these challenges.

Citation： Mike Clarke. Systematic Reviews: New Challenges Relating to Non-randomised Studies and Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2006, 06(4): 236-242. doi: Copy

1.	Clarke M. Doing new research? Don’t forget the old: nobody should do a trial without reviewing what is known. PLoS Medicine, 2004;1:100-102.
2.	Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA, 2002;287:2 799-2 801.
3.	Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 2002; 25: 12-37.
4.	Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, et al. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration’s CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 2002; 25: 38-64.
5.	Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. For the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration (4). Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Medicine, 2005; 5: 941-943.
6.	Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 2003;7(27):1-183.

1. Clarke M. Doing new research? Don’t forget the old: nobody should do a trial without reviewing what is known. PLoS Medicine, 2004;1:100-102.
2. Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA, 2002;287:2 799-2 801.
3. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 2002; 25: 12-37.
4. Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, et al. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration’s CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 2002; 25: 38-64.
5. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. For the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration (4). Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Medicine, 2005; 5: 941-943.
6. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment, 2003;7(27):1-183.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Systematic Reviews: New Challenges Relating to Non-randomised Studies and Diagnostic Test Accuracy

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content