Evaluating the evidence for evidence-based medicine: are randomized clinical trials less flawed than other forms of peer-reviewed medical research?

@article{Steen2013EvaluatingTE,
  title={Evaluating the evidence for evidence-based medicine: are randomized clinical trials less flawed than other forms of peer-reviewed medical research?},
  author={R. Grant Steen and Stephen R Dager},
  journal={FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology},
  year={2013},
  volume={27 9},
  pages={
          3430-6
        }
}
Evidence-based medicine considers randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to be the strongest form of evidence for clinical decision making. To test the hypothesis that RCTs have fewer methodological flaws than non-RCTs, limitations of 17,591 RCTs and 39,029 non-RCTs were characterized. Panels of experts assembled to write meta-analyses evaluated this literature to determine which articles should be included in 316 meta-analytic reviews. Overall, 38.7% of RCTs evaluated were excluded from review for… CONTINUE READING
Related Discussions
This paper has been referenced on Twitter 6 times. VIEW TWEETS

From This Paper

Figures, tables, and topics from this paper.

Explore Further: Topics Discussed in This Paper

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 36 references

Assessing strength of evidence in diagnostic tests.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery • 2012
View 1 Excerpt

Biases in the evaluation of psychiatric clinical evidence.

The Journal of nervous and mental disease • 2012
View 2 Excerpts

Statins for primary prevention.

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne • 2012
View 1 Excerpt

Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis.

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne • 2011