This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their meta-analysis, Dr Ioannidis and colleagues¹ found that randomized and nonrandomized studies often reach similar conclusions, although nonrandomized studies may yield larger estimates of the effect size. I agree with the authors that nonrandomized evidence can help explore clinical questions. However, analyzing sources of heterogeneity among randomized and nonrandomized trials might be more informative than simply pooling treatment results from only randomized clinical trials. Especially in the case of an unclear treatment effect, all available information should be used to resolve the uncertainty in outcome between studies. Important information from nonrandomized clinical trials should not be ignored; instead, heterogeneity in design, data collection, and analysis should be explored. Even in randomized clinical trials, the method of randomization might lead to differences in outcomes.

Identifying all relevant data to explore differences in methodological aspects of studies is important not only in evaluating the efficacy of therapeutic and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies
John P. A. Ioannidis, Anna-Bettina Haidich, Maroudia Pappa, Nikos Pantazis, Styliani I. Kokori, Maria G. Tektonidou, Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, and Joseph Lau
JAMA. 2001;286(7):821-830.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT