Cited by 248Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions

Open access
Schünemann, Holger J., Tugwell, Peter, Reeves, Barnaby C., Akl, Elie A., Santesso, Nancy, Spencer, Frederick A., Shea, Beverley, Wells, George +1 more·2013·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

The terms applicability, generalizability, external validity and transferability are related, sometimes used interchangeably and have in common that they lack a clear and consistent definition in the classic epidemiological literature. However, all of these terms generally describe one overarching theme: whether or not available research evidence can be directly utilized to answer the healthcare questions at hand, ideally supported by a judgment about the degree of confidence for this utilization. This concept has been called directness. The objectives of this paper were to delineate how non‐randomized studies (NRS) inform judgments in relation to directness and the concepts that it encompasses in the context of systematic reviews. We will briefly review what is known and describe the theoretical and practical issues as well as offer guidance to those tackling the challenges of judging directness and using research evidence to answer healthcare questions with evidence from NRS. In particular, we suggest a framework in which authors can use NRS as a complement, sequence or replacement for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by focusing on judgments about the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes. Authors of systematic reviews will use NRS to complement judgments about the inconsistencies, the rationale and credibility of subgroup analysis, the baseline risk estimates for the determination of absolute benefits and downsides, and the directness of surrogate outcomes. This evidence includes contextual or supplementary evidence. Authors of systematic review and other summaries of the evidence use NRS as sequential evidence to provide evidence when insufficient evidence is available for an outcome from RCTs, but NRS evidence is available (e.g., long‐term harms). Use of evidence from NRS may also serve to replace RCT evidence when NRS provide equivalent (or potentially higher) confidence in the evidence (i.e. quality) compared to indirect evidence from RCTs. These judgments will be made in the context of other domains that influence the overall quality of the body of evidence, including the risk of bias, publication bias (i.e. limitations in the detailed study design and execution), inconsistency, imprecision and factors that increase our confidence in effects. This article will support systematic reviewers in their interaction with decision makers, that is, those who use the systematic review to develop guidelines, address health policy makers, and make clinical decisions, by making these judgments transparent. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1078

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rothman K, Greenland S. 1998. Modern Epidemiology (2nd edition). Philadelphia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schünemann, H. J., Tugwell, P., Reeves, B. C., Akl, E. A., Santesso, N., Spencer, F. A., Shea, B., Wells, G., & Helfand, M.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Bristol Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Schünemann, Holger J.
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
49-62
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W2126629865
Cited by
248
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
non-randomized studies, generalizability, applicability, transferability, surrogate endpoints, subgroup analysis, contextual evidence, risk of bias, publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision, quality of evidence, systematic review methodology

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