We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Use of non-randomised evidence alongside randomised trials in a systematic review of endovascular aneurysm repair: strengths and limitations.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether limitations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be addressed by evidence from non-randomised studies.
DESIGN: Analysis of data from a systematic review.
METHODS: We conducted a review of EVAR versus open repair or non-surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. In addition to RCTs, we included pre-specified registries of EVAR and open repair.
RESULTS: The six included RCTs randomised patients in 2003 and earlier. Of the three registries included, one contributed data on a large (>8000) sample of patients treated with newer generation EVAR devices and followed up for up to 8 years. However, treatment dates of these patients overlapped with those of the RCTs. The other registries were of limited usefulness. A large (>45,000) controlled observational study published while the review was in progress broadly supported the findings of RCTs comparing EVAR with open surgery. A comparison of outcomes across all studies did not support the hypothesis that the findings of the RCTs are no longer representative of clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Both randomised and non-randomised sources of evidence have strengths and weaknesses for assessing the effectiveness of EVAR. Further research should explore the optimum use of registry data, including patient-level analyses.
DESIGN: Analysis of data from a systematic review.
METHODS: We conducted a review of EVAR versus open repair or non-surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. In addition to RCTs, we included pre-specified registries of EVAR and open repair.
RESULTS: The six included RCTs randomised patients in 2003 and earlier. Of the three registries included, one contributed data on a large (>8000) sample of patients treated with newer generation EVAR devices and followed up for up to 8 years. However, treatment dates of these patients overlapped with those of the RCTs. The other registries were of limited usefulness. A large (>45,000) controlled observational study published while the review was in progress broadly supported the findings of RCTs comparing EVAR with open surgery. A comparison of outcomes across all studies did not support the hypothesis that the findings of the RCTs are no longer representative of clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Both randomised and non-randomised sources of evidence have strengths and weaknesses for assessing the effectiveness of EVAR. Further research should explore the optimum use of registry data, including patient-level analyses.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app