Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Observational Descriptive Studies These are simplest types of studies and include case reports and case series.
Case Reports: These are best looked upon as a means to generate hypotheses about disease processes. They usually report an unusual event in respect to a disease. Case Series: These report observations in a group of patients. They are good for studying rare disorders or reporting treatment outcomes of interventions like surgery.
Observational Analytical Studies Here observations in two or more groups are compared without researchers making an intervention. Two main types are casecontrol studies and cohort studies
Case-Control Studies Cohort Studies
Observational Analytical Studies Case-Control Studies Here the researcher is looking for the possible causes of an identified outcome.
A group of subjects with the outcome is compared with a matched control group without the outcome. The difference in exposures and risk factors between the two groups is then analysed retrospectively.
Observational Analytical Studies Case-Control Studies Example: TMD in orthodontic patients compared to non orthodontic patients case-control studies are usually retrospective, but not always
Observational Analytical Studies Cohort Studies Here the researcher is looking at whether an exposure or risk factor results in an outcome.
A group of subjects with the exposure is compared with a matched group without the exposure. Both groups are then observed or followed up to see the difference in development of the outcome between the two groups.
Cohort Studies
Time Direction of inquiry
Start People without the disease Exposed Not exposed Finish Disease Population No disease Disease No disease
Experimental/Interventional Studies Here the researcher intervenes in a group of subjects to assess the outcomes that the intervention produces. There are several types of experimental/interventional studies:
Open Trial Controlled Trial Randomised Controlled trial (RCT) Crossover Trial
Finish
Measure outcome Lost to follow-up Control Measure outcome
Sample Population
Randomization to groups
Crossover Trials
Treatment Eligible/Consent Randomize Control Treatment Control
Run-in period
Washout period
Systematic reviews are studies that systematically search and analyse research articles based on a clinical question.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reviews of particular importance are those dealing with RCTs of a specific intervention. Such reviews pool the results of several studies to produce results that are statistically more powerful, reliable and accurate than the individual studies.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Due to the value placed on systematic reviews they are considered as a goldstandard in evidence based medicine. The importance of systematic reviews has led researchers to try and standardise on how such studies should be reported in published literature.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses The QUOROM statement (Quality of Reporting of Metanalysis) was produced during a conference of the same name in 1999. This has recently been superseded by the PRISMA statement (Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). The statement sets out checklist of 27 items that authors should report in their review.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Pros: Statistically powerful measures of effect, Cons: Quality of meta-analysis limited by the quality of original studies included or available.