Skip to main content

Nonrandomized Interventional Study Designs (Quasi-Experimental Designs)

  • Chapter
Book cover Clinical Research Methods for Surgeons

Abstract

In contrast to observational study designs, interventional studies manipulate clinical care to evaluate treatment effects on outcomes. Although surgeons have often relied on observational studies to establish the efficacy and effectiveness of operative and perioperative interventions, observational studies (also referred to as case series) are limited to demonstrating the correlation between the outcome of interest and the procedure. Prospective controlled interventional trials will provide a higher level of evidence for a true cause-and-effect relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomized trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002;324:1448–1451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. New Engl J Med 1999;341:992–996.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Curry JI, Reeves B, Stringer MD. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? J Pediatric Surg 2003;38(4):556–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 1995: 48:1503–1510.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Moseley JB, O’ Malley K, Petersen NJ, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347:81–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. BMJ 1998;317:1185–1190.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Flum DR, Dellinger EP, Cheadle A, Chan L, Koepsell T. Intraoperative cholangiography and risk of common bile duct injury during cholecystectomy. JAMA 2003;289:1639–1644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marschall G, Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hammermeister KE. Time series monitors of outcomes: a new dimension for measuring quality of care. Med Care 1998;36:348–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Olschewski M, Scheurlen H. Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial. Methods Inf Med 1985;24:131–134.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Torgerson DJ, Sibbald B. Understanding controlled trials: what is a patient preference trial? BMJ 1998;316:360–361.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. CASS Principal Investigators and their Associates. Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Comparability of entry characteristics and survival in randomized and non-randomized patients meeting randomization criteria. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984;3:114–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Olschewski M, Schumacher M, Davis KB. Analysis of randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials using the comprehensive cohort follow-up study design. Controlled Clin Trials 1992;13:226–239.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Olschewski M, Scheurlen H. Comprehensive cohort study: an alternative to randomized consent design in a breast preservation trial. Methods Inf Med 1985;24:131–134.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, et al. A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomized and non-randomized studies. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:34.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, et al. Choosing between randomized and non-randomized studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assessment 1998;2:13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A Comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878–1886.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Humana Press Inc., Totowa NJ

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Axelrod, D.A., Hayward, R. (2006). Nonrandomized Interventional Study Designs (Quasi-Experimental Designs). In: Penson, D.F., Wei, J.T. (eds) Clinical Research Methods for Surgeons. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-230-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-230-4_4

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-326-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-230-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics