| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10514214 | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology | 2013 | 4 Pages |
Abstract
Most EPOC reviews consider nonrandomized studies, but the degree to which they find them varies. As nonrandomized studies are believed to be at higher risk of bias and their inclusion entails a considerable effort, review authors should consider whether the benefits justify the inclusion of these designs. Research should explore whether it is more useful to consider nonrandomized studies in reviews of some intervention types than others.
Keywords
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Public Health and Health Policy
Authors
Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin, Alain Mayhew, Inger Scheel, Jan Odgaard-Jensen,