Advertisement

Einführung in die Beurteilung wissenschaftlicher Studien

  • Sabine MangoldEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die EBP fordert, Studien hinsichtlich ihrer wissenschaftlichen Güte zu beurteilen, um ihre Beweiskraft einzuschätzen und um die besten zur Verfügung stehenden Studien auszuwählen.

Literatur

  1. Altman DG, Bland JB (1999a) How to randomise. BMJ 319:703–704Google Scholar
  2. Altman DG, Bland JB (1999b) Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 318:1209Google Scholar
  3. Altman DG, Schulz KF (2001a) Concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ 323:446–447Google Scholar
  4. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T for the CONSORT group (2001b) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134(8):663–694Google Scholar
  5. Bortz J, Döring N (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4. Aufl. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Bortz J, Lienert GA (2008) Kurzgefasste Statistik für die klinische Forschung. Leitfaden für die verteilungsfreie Analyse kleiner Stichproben, 3. Aufl. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr (1983) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 309(22):1358–1361Google Scholar
  8. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F (1989) How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I: Medical Stat Med 8(4):441–454Google Scholar
  10. Fransen J, de Bruin ED (2000) Evidence Based Medicine in der RManuellen Therapie. Manuelle Therapie 4:95–102Google Scholar
  11. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1993) Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 270(21):2598–2601Google Scholar
  12. Hollis S, Campbell F (1999) What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319:670–674Google Scholar
  13. Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL (2007) Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21(3):233–238Google Scholar
  14. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS (1987) The Functional Independence Measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil 1:16–18Google Scholar
  15. Laupacis A, Wells G, Richardson WS, Tugwell P, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1994) Users’ guides to the medical literature. V. How to use an article about prognosis. JAMA 272(3):234–237Google Scholar
  16. Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC (2008) Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:22Google Scholar
  17. Mangold S (2005) Evidenz-basierte Praxis am Beispiel „Gelenkschutzprogramm bei rheumatoider Arthritis“. Ergotherapie - Zeitschrift für angewandte Wissenschaft 6(1):3–12Google Scholar
  18. Oczkowski WJ, Barreca S (1993) The Functional Independence Measure: Its use to identify rehabiliation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 74:1291–1294Google Scholar
  19. Physiotherapy Evidence Database (1999) PEDro Scale. http://www.pedro.org.au/scale_item.html. Zugegriffen 16. März 2009
  20. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (1999) Evidenzbasierte Medizin – EBM-Umsetzung und –vermittlung. Deutsche Ausgabe: Kunz R, Fritsche L. Zuckschwerdt, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  21. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr (1982) Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 72(2):233–240Google Scholar
  22. Schädler S, Kool J, Lüthi H, Marks D, Oesch P, Pfeffer A, Wirz M (2006) Assessments in der Neurorehabilitation. Hans Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  23. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273(5):408–412Google Scholar
  24. Windeler J, Conradt C (1999) Wie können „Signifikanz“ und „Relevanz“ verbunden werden? Med Klin 94(11):652–655Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical and Regulatory Affairs Acrostak (Schweiz) AGWinterthurSchweiz

Personalised recommendations