Skip to main content
×
Home

Cross-design Synthesis: A New Form of Meta-analysis for Combining Results from Randomized Clinical Trials and Medical-practice Databases

  • Judith Droitcour (a1), George Silberman (a1) and Eleanor Chelimsky (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

Cross-design synthesis is a new (and still evolving) strategy for providing quantitative results that capture the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of different kinds of research. The strategy, which is being developed to answer questions about the effects of treatment in medical practice, includes (a) identifying complementary research designs and studies conducted according to those designs; (b) completing an in-depth assessment of each study with respect to the chief potential bias(es) that are associated with its design; (c) making “secondary adjustments” of study results to correct known biases; and (d) developing synthesis frameworks and models that will minimize the impact of hidden biases.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1.Barnett H. J. M., Sackett D., Taylor D. W., et al. Are the results of the Extracranial Intracranial Bypass Trial generalizable? New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 820–24.
2.Byar D. P.Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics, 1980, 36, 337–42.
3.Byar D. P., Schoenfeld D. A., Green S. B., et al. Design considerations for AIDS trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 1343–48.
4.Calif R. M., Pryor D. B., & Greenfield J. C.Beyond randomized clinical trials: applying clinical experience in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation, 1986, 74, 1191–94.
5.Chalmers T. C., Smith H. Jr., Blackburn B., et al. A Method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 1981, 2, 3149.
6.Colditz G., Miller J., & Mosteller F.The effect of study design on gain in evaluation of new treatments in medicine and surgery. Drug Information Journal, 1988, 22, 343–52.
7.Cordray D. S. An assessment from the policy perspective. In Wachter K. W. & Straf M. L. (eds.), The future of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990.
8.Cordray D. S. Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data: The role of meta-analysis. In Sechrest L., et al. (eds.), Research methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1990.
9.Davis K. The comprehensive cohort study: The use of registry data to confirm and extend a randomized trial. Recent results in cancer research, vol. 111. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
10.Eddy D. M., Hasselblad V., & Schacter R.Meta-analysis by the confidence profile method: The statistical synthesis of evidence. Boston, MA: Academic Press (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich), 1992.
11.Eddy D. M., Hasselblad V., & Shacter R.The statistical synthesis of evidence: Meta analysis by the confidence profile method. Report issued by the Center for Health Policy Research and Education, Duke University, and by the Department of Engineering Economic Systems, Stanford University, 1989.
12.Edlund M. J., Craig T. J., & Richardson M. A.Informed consent as a form of volunteer bias. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1985, 142, 624–27.
13.Ellenberg S.Meta-analysis: The quantitative approach to research review. Seminars in Oncology, 1988, 15, 472–81.
14.Ellwood P. M.A technology of patient experience. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 318, 1549–56.
15.Fischerman K., & Mouridsen H. T.Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG): Structure and results of the organization. Acta Oncologica, 1988, 27, 593–96.
16.Fisher R. A.Statistical methods for research workers, 1st ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1925.
17.Fisher R. A.The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1935.
18.Glass G. V.Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 1976, 6, 38.
19.Glass G. V., McGaw B., & Smith M. L.Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills CA: Sage, 1981.
20.Hedges L., & Olkin O.Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1985.
21.Himel H. N., Liberati A., Gelber R., & Chalmers T. C.Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: A pooled estimate based on published randomized control trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1986, 256, 1148–59.
22.Hlatky M. A.Using databases to evaluate therapy. Statistics in Medicine, 1991, 10, 647–52.
23.Hlatky M. A., Califf R. M., Harrell F. E. Jr., et al. Comparison of predictions based on observational data with the results of controlled clinical trials of coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1988, 1, 237–45.
24.Jackson G. B. Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 1980, 50, 438–60. (Reprinted in Light R. J. (ed.), Evaluation studies review annual, vol. 8. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.)
25.Krakauer H.Assessment of alternative technologies for the treatment of end-stage renal disease. Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, 1986, 22, 245–59.
26.Krakauer H., & Bailey R. C.Epidemiological oversight of the medical care provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Statistics in Medicine, 1991, 10, 521–40.
27.Lichtman S. M., & Budman D. R.Letter to the editor. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 321, 470.
28.Light R. J., & Pillemer D. B.Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
29.Lipsey M. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Cook T. D., Cooper H., Cordray D. S., et al. (eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.
30.Louis T. A., Fineberg H. V., & Mosteller F.Findings for public health from metaanalyses. Annual Review of Public Health, 1985, 6, 120.
31.McDonald C., & Siu H.The analysis of humongous databases: Problems and promises. Statistics in Medicine, 1991, 10, 511–18.
32.Moffitt R.Program evaluation with nonexperimental data. Evaluation Review, 1991, 15(3), 291314.
33.Mosteller F. Improving research methodology: An overview. In Sechrest L., et al. (eds.), Research methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1990.
34.Peto R.Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Statistics in Medicine, 1987, 6, 233–40.
35.Pocock S.Clinical trials: A practical approach. New York: Wiley, 1983.
36.Pryor D. B., Califf R. M., Harrell F. E. Jr., et al. Clinical data bases: Accomplishments and unrealized potential. Medical Care, 1985, 23(5), 623–47.
37.Roos N., Wennberg J., Malenka D., et al. Mortality and reoperation after open and transurethral resection of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 320, 1120–24.
38.Roper W. L., Winkenwerder W., Hackbarth G. M., & Krakauer H.Effectiveness in health care: An initiative to evaluate and improve medical practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 1988, 319, 11971202.
39.Rosenthal R., Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.
40.Rubin D. B.Practical implications of modes of statistical inference for causal effects and the critical role of the assignment mechanism. Biometrics, 1991, 47(4), 1213–34.
41.Rubin D. B. A new perspective. In Wachter K. W. & Straf M. L. (eds.), The future of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990.
42.Rubin D. B.Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 688701.
43.Schooler N. R.How generalizable are the results of clinical trials? Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 1980, 16, 2931.
44.Taylor K. M., Margolese R. G., & Soskoline C. L.Physicians reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310, 1363–67.
45.U.S. General Accounting Office. Cross design synthesis: A new strategy for medical effectiveness research (GAO/PEMD-92–18). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992.
46.U.S. General Accounting Office. Breast cancer: Patients’ survival (GAO/PEMD-89-9). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1989.
47. U.S. General Accounting Office, forthcoming.
48.Wennberg J. E., Freeman J. L., Shelton R. M., & Bubolz T. A.Hospital use and mortality among medicare beneficiaries in Boston and New Haven. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 321, 1168–73.
49.Wortman P. M., & Yeaton W. H. Synthesis of results in controlled trials of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In Light R. J. (ed.), Evaluation studies review annual, 1983, 8, 536–51. Beverly Hills, CA.
Recommend this journal

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

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 27 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 172 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.