Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Clinical research in anaesthesia; randomized controlled trials or observational studies?

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Clinical research in anaesthesia; randomized controlled trials or observational studies?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Clinical research in anaesthesia; randomized controlled trials or observational studies?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Clinical research in anaesthesia; randomized controlled trials or observational studies?
      Available formats
      ×
Abstract
Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence to: R. O. Feneck. E-mail: rob_feneck@msn.com
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

JacksonRG, StamfordJA, StruninL. The canary is dead.Anaesthesia2003; 58: 911912.

SchulzKF, GrimesDA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering.Lancet2002; 359: 614618.

ChalmersI. Why transition from alternation to randomisation in clinical trials was made.BMJ1999; 319: 1372.

DaySJ, AltmanDG. Statistical notes; blinding in clinical trials and other studies.BMJ 2000; 321: 504.

TobinJR, ShaferSL, DavisPJ. Pediatric research and scholarship: another Gordian Knot?Anesth Analg2006; 103: 4348.

KunzR, OxmanAD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials.BMJ1998; 317: 11851190.

JulianDG. What is right and what is wrong about evidence-based medicine?J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol2003; 14(9 Suppl): S2S5.

ManganoDT, TudorIC, DietzelC. Multicentre Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group, Ischemia Research and Education Foundation. The risk associated with aprotinin in cardiac surgery.New Engl J Med2006; 354: 353365.

Kirk-SmithMD, StretchDD. Evidence-based medicine and randomized double-blind clinical trials: a study of flawed implementation.J Eval Clin Pract2001; 7: 119123.

ClarkeMJ, StewartLA. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials: the need for complete data.J Eval Clin Pract1995; 1: 119126.

BlackstoneEH. Comparing apples and oranges.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2002; 123: 815.

D'AgostinoJrRB. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group.Stat Med1998; 17: 22652281.

HunterD. First, gather the data.New Engl J Med2006; 354: 329331.

RubinDB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores.Ann Intern Med1997; 127: 757763.

NussmeierNA, WheltonAA, BrownMTet al. Complications of the COX-2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib after cardiac surgery.New Engl J Med2005; 352: 10811091.

VandenbrouckeJP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?Lancet2004; 363: 17281731.

FeneckR. OPCAB surgery: time for a reappraisal?J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2004; 18: 253255.

EtminanM, Samii EtminanM, SamiiA. Pharmacoepidemiology I: a review of pharmacoepidemiologic study designs.Pharmacotherapy2004; 24: 964969.

KarkoutiK, BeattieWS, DattiloKMet al. A propensity score case-control comparison of aprotinin and tranexamic acid in high-transfusion-risk cardiac surgery.Transfusion2006; 46: 327338.

YoungC, HortonR. Putting clinical trials into context.Lancet2005; 366: 107108.

FergussonD, GlassKC, HuttonB, ShapiroS. Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?Clin Trials2005; 2: 218229.

SedrakyanA, TreasureT, ElefteriadesJA. Effect of aprotinin on clinical outcomes in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2004; 128: 442448.

SedrakyanA, AtkinsD, TreasureT. The risk of aprotinin: a conflict of evidence.Lancet2006; 367: 13761377.

AvornJ. Dangerous deception – hiding the evidence of adverse drug effects.New Engl J Med2006; 355: 21692171.

HiattWR. Observational studies of drug safety – aprotinin and the absence of transparency.New Engl J Med2006; 355: 21712173.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

European Journal of Anaesthesiology
  • ISSN: 0265-0215
  • EISSN: 1365-2346
  • URL: /core/journals/european-journal-of-anaesthesiology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×