The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's ‘guidelines for causation’ contribute?
Open accessAbstract
High quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (concealed allocation, relevant groups blinded and sufficiently powered, etc.) will usually provide sufficient evidence to establish that a particular treatment caused an outcome. Yet sufficiently well‐conducted RCTs are rare.1 Trials can be under‐powered,2 or unsuccessfully blinded,3,4 and often suffer from many undetected biases. The results of most RCTs are therefore often insufficient to establish causation. At the same time, RCTs are often not required to establish causation.5 Treatments including the Heimlich manoeuvre, cardiac defibrillation and parachutes to prevent death6 have never been tested in RCTs, yet their effectiveness is surely strongly supported by evidence. Evidence‐grading systems that place randomized trials at the top of a hierarchy7–13 will deliver misleading conclusions in cases where RCTs are insufficient or unnecessary. According to these hierarchies, trails of homeopathy – often generating positive results and generally of higher quality than RCTs of conventional treatments14 – will be considered to provide strong evidence, whereas the evidence base for the Heimlich manoeuvre to unblock airways and parachutes to prevent death will be judged as less strongly supported by evidence. Sir Austin Bradford Hill, in a widely‐cited ‘pre‐EBM’ system for appraising evidence, suggested that several relevant factors must be considered before concluding causation. We investigated and revised the Bradford Hill ‘guidelines for causation’, in order to refine our intuitions about whether to believe that intervention is effective. Our intention is not to debunk previous attempts to grade evidence, but rather to contribute to their natural evolution and development.
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
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
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
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?
Hill, A. B. (1965) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/003591576505800503 · Cited by 6,974
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care
Hébert, P. C., Wells, G., Blajchman, M. A., Marshall, J., Martin, C., Pagliarello, G., Tweeddale, M., Schweitzer, I., & Yetisir, E. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199902113400601 · Cited by 5,187
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/392759 · Cited by 3,179
Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors
Doll, R., Peto, R., Boreham, J., & Sutherland, I. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.ae · Cited by 2,920
Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., Gluud, C., Martin, R. M., Wood, A. J. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.ad · Cited by 2,538
A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials.
Benson, K., & Hartz, A. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422506 · Cited by 2,347
Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement
Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., Pocock, S. J., Evans, S. J. W., & CONSORT Group, F. T. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.10.1152 · Cited by 1,153
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · DOI · Paper page
- Keen HI, 2005, J Rheumatol, 32, 2083
- 10.1136/bmj.37952.631667.EE · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ije/dym020 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459 · DOI · Paper page
- Harbour RT, 2008, SIGN 50: A guideline developer's handbook
- Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, 1979, CMAJ, 121, 1193
- 10.1186/1472-6963-5-25 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/02698590701498084 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ijsu.2005.10.006 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2005.10.006
- 10.2165/00002018-200730040-00006 · DOI
- 10.2165/00002018-200225060-00012 · DOI
- 10.2165/00139709-200322040-00006 · DOI
- 10.2165/00139709-200322040-00005 · DOI
- 10.1176/jnp.13.3.318 · DOI
- Hill ABS, 1991, Bradford Hill's principles of medical statistics
- 10.1186/1742-5573-1-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1602/neurorx.1.3.341 · DOI
- 10.7326/0003-4819-132-9-200005020-00011 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.06.027 · DOI
- Moncrieff J, 2004, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, CD003012
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16043-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/archpsyc.64.7.868-a · DOI
- 10.1016/j.mehy.2005.02.037 · doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2005.02.037
- 10.1017/CBO9780511618758 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.1.4877.1451 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJM199103213241201 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJM199406163302404 · DOI · Paper page
- Spock B, 1966, Baby and Child Care
- 10.1016/j.shpsc.2004.12.003 · DOI
- 10.1002/cmdc.200600153 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmj.327.7415.616 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00527.x · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00527.x
Cited by
Aronson, J. K., & Ferner, R. E. (2017) · Current Protocols in Pharmacology · doi:10.1002/cpph.19 · Cited by 417
Self-citationBleijenberg, N., de Man-van Ginkel, J. M., Trappenburg, J. C. A., Ettema, R. G. A., Sino, C. G., Heim, N., Hafsteindóttir, T. B., Richards, D. A., & Schuurmans, M. J. (2018) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.12.001 · Cited by 334
Scott, A. J., Alexander, J. L., Merrifield, C. A., Cunningham, D., Jobin, C., Brown, R., Alverdy, J., O’Keefe, S. J., Gaskins, H. R., Teare, J., et al. (2019) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318556 · Cited by 288
“50 For example, direct evidence for the causal relationship between H. pylori and gastric cancer (controversial for some time) comes from Uemura et al ’s landmark prospective cohort study demonstrating that gastric cancer developed in approximately 3% of individuals infected with H. pylori compared…”
Revisiting protein aggregation as pathogenic in sporadic Parkinson and Alzheimer diseases
Espay, A. J., Vizcarra, J. A., Marsili, L., Lang, A. E., Simon, D. K., Merola, A., Josephs, K. A., Fasano, A., Morgante, F., Savica, R., et al. (2019) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000006926 · Cited by 274
Pillinger, T., D’Ambrosio, E., McCutcheon, R., & Howes, O. D. (2019) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-018-0058-9 · Cited by 230
Metadata
- Authors
- Howick, J., Glasziou, P., & Aronson, J. K.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-05-01
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 186-194
- ISSN
- 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1095
- OpenAlex
- W2116877774
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 12.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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: The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's ‘guidelines for causation’ contribute? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1258/jrsm.2009.090020
- The paper
- Howick, J., Glasziou, P., & Aronson, J. K. (2009). The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's ‘guidelines for causation’ contribute? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2009.090020
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.
