The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the Evidence: Is There a Rigid Hierarchy?
Abstract
Health outcomes research applies a wide range of meth-ods to identify optimal approaches to determine optimal approaches to determine the effects of healthcare interven-tions and policies. Critical evaluation skills are necessary to navigate the evidence and identify studies that should influ-ence clinical decision making and policy. A hierarchical “pyramid of evidence ” that emphasizes randomized con-trolled clinical trials (RCTs) has been promulgated as the approach to judging study design and quality. Whereas this hierarchy may be suitable for the evaluation of efficacy, it may be inappropriate for many health outcomes research questions. This article examines the relevance of this con-struct to questions beyond those of therapeutic efficacy and discusses the essential role of study designs beyond RCTs. The strengths and weaknesses of study designs commonly encountered in the medical literature are reviewed. The article concludes with 2 case studies that apply the concepts re-viewed and illustrate the need to match the study design with the research question. Of note, the concepts of internal validity, external validity, confounding, and bias are central to the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of study designs in the medical literature. Readers not familiar with these concepts should refer to the Appendix in the online-only Data Supplement for clarification.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators (2002) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321 · Cited by 15,889
Yusuf, S., Hawken, S., Ôunpuu, S., Dans, T., Avezum, A., Lanas, F., McQueen, M., Budaj, A., Pais, P., Varigos, J., et al. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17018-9 · Cited by 12,026
Hulley, S. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.7.605 · Cited by 6,216
Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes
Nissen, S. E., & Wolski, K. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa072761 · Cited by 4,675
Pfeffer, M. A., McMurray, J. J. V., Velazquez, E. J., Rouleau, J.-L., Køber, L., Maggioni, A. P., Solomon, S. D., Swedberg, K., Van de Werf, F., White, H., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032292 · Cited by 2,471
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Weinstein, M. C. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031 · Cited by 2,455
Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1533 · Cited by 2,415
Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses
Sutton, A. J. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574 · Cited by 1,398
A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality
Simpson, S. H., Eurich, D. T., Majumdar, S. R., Padwal, R. S., Tsuyuki, R. T., Varney, J., & Johnson, J. A. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38875.675486.55 · Cited by 1,353
Appetite-suppressant drugs and the risk of primary pulmonary hypertension
Abenhaim, L., Moride, Y., Brenot, F., Rich, S., Benichou, J., Kurz, X., Higenbottam, T., Oakley, C., Wouters, E., Aubier, M., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199608293350901 · Cited by 1,162
Cited by
Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)
Downes, M. J., Brennan, M. L., Williams, H. C., & Dean, R. S. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458 · Cited by 2,376
Routledge, C., Ostafin, B., Juhl, J., Sedikides, C., Cathey, C., & Liao, J. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021431 · Cited by 227
Välimäki, M., Anttila, K., Anttila, M., & Lahti, M. (2017) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8624 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, P. M., Peterson, P. N., & Masoudi, F. A.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2008-10-14
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1675-1684
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2163122529
- Cited by
- 251
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 11.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating the Evidence: Is There a Rigid Hierarchy? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.107.721357
- The paper
- Ho, P. M., Peterson, P. N., & Masoudi, F. A. (2008). Evaluating the Evidence: Is There a Rigid Hierarchy? Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.721357
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
