top banner image  

topleft corner image     top right corner image
 


bullet

JACC Homepage JACC Imaging Homepage
Still not a subscriber to JACC Imaging or JACC Interventions?

     top nav image

     

J Am Coll Cardiol Intv, 2008; 1:211-217, doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2008.01.008
© 2008 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hannan, E. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hannan, E. L.

State-of-the-Art Paper

Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Studies

Guidelines for Assessing Respective Strengths and Limitations

Edward L. Hannan, PhD, MS, MS, FACC*

University at Albany School of Public Health, Rensselaer, New York.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Edward L. Hannan, School of Public Health, State University of New York, Department of Health Policy, Management and Behavior, SUNY University at Albany, One University Place, Rensselaer, New York 12144-3456. (Email: elh03{at}health.state.ny.us).

The 2 primary types of studies that are used to test new drugs or procedures or compare competing drugs or types of procedures are randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS). Although it would appear that RCTs always trump OS because they eliminate selection bias, there are many possible limitations to both types of studies, and these limitations must be carefully assessed when comparing the results of RCTs and OS. This state-of-the art review describes these limitations and discusses how to assess the validity of RCTs and OS that yield different conclusions regarding the relative merit of competing treatments/interventions.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  BMS = bare-metal stent(s)
  CABG = coronary artery bypass graft
  CI = confidence interval
  DES = drug-eluting stent(s)
  HRT = hormone replacement therapy
  OR = odds ratio
  OS = observational study/studies
  PES = paclitaxel-eluting stent(s)
  PTCA = percutaneous translumincal coronary angioplasty
  RCT = randomized controlled trial(s)
  RR = relative risk




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
A. J. Kirtane, A. Gupta, S. Iyengar, J. W. Moses, M. B. Leon, R. Applegate, B. Brodie, E. Hannan, K. Harjai, L. O. Jensen, et al.
Safety and Efficacy of Drug-Eluting and Bare Metal Stents: Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Observational Studies
Circulation, June 30, 2009; 119(25): 3198 - 3206.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



 
   
 
home link current link search link archive link topics link cardiology careers link