Cited by 183Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions

Higgins, Julian PT, Ramsay, Craig, Reeves, Barnaby C, Deeks, Jonathan J, Shea, Beverley, Valentine, Jeffrey C, Tugwell, Peter, Wells, George·2013·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

Non‐randomized studies may provide valuable evidence on the effects of interventions. They are the main source of evidence on the intended effects of some types of interventions and often provide the only evidence about the effects of interventions on long‐term outcomes, rare events or adverse effects. Therefore, systematic reviews on the effects of interventions may include various types of non‐randomized studies. In this second paper in a series, we address how review authors might articulate the particular non‐randomized study designs they will include and how they might evaluate, in general terms, the extent to which a particular non‐randomized study is at risk of important biases. We offer guidance for describing and classifying different non‐randomized designs based on specific features of the studies in place of using non‐informative study design labels. We also suggest criteria to consider when deciding whether to include non‐randomized studies. We conclude that a taxonomy of study designs based on study design features is needed. Review authors need new tools specifically to assess the risk of bias for some non‐randomized designs that involve a different inferential logic compared with parallel group trials. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1056

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Higgins, J. P., Ramsay, C., Reeves, B. C., Deeks, J. J., Shea, B., Valentine, J. C., Tugwell, P., & Wells, G.
Affiliations
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Bristol Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Louisville (US)
Corresponding author
Higgins, Julian PT
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09-25
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
12-25
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W2062040186
Cited by
183
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Scottish Government
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
non-randomized studies, risk of bias, study design classification, intervention effects, observational study design, causal inference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review