ReviewThe Journal of hand surgery2015
The quality of control groups in nonrandomized studies published in the Journal of Hand Surgery.
Review in The Journal of hand surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Simulation Study of Threats to Validity in Quasi-Experimental Designs: Interrelationship between Design, Measurement, and Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate control group selection in nonrandomized studies published in the Journal of Hand Surgery American (JHS).
methodsWe reviewed all papers published in JHS in 2013 to identify studies that used nonrandomized control groups. Data collected included type of study design and control group characteristics. We then appraised studies to determine whether authors discussed confounding and selection bias and how they controlled for confounding.
resultsThirty-seven nonrandomized studies were published in JHS in 2013. The source of control was either the same institution as the study group, a different institution, a database, or not provided in the manuscript. Twenty-nine (78%) studies statistically compared key characteristics between control and study group. Confounding was controlled with matching, exclusion criteria, or regression analysis. Twenty-two (59%) papers explicitly discussed the threat of confounding and 18 (49%) identified sources of selection bias.
conclusionsIn our review of nonrandomized studies published in JHS, papers had well-defined controls that were similar to the study group, allowing for reasonable comparisons. However, we identified substantial confounding and bias that were not addressed as explicit limitations, which might lead the reader to overestimate the scientific validity of the data. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Incorporating a brief discussion of control group selection in scientific manuscripts should help readers interpret the study more appropriately. Authors, reviewers, and editors should strive to address this component of clinical importance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.