Current study design labels are confusing! Call for consensus on better terminology that clearly reflects specific features

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology is receiving more manuscripts on non-randomized studies and this is reflected in the recent series on quasi-experimental designs [1]. Contrary to popular belief, some Cochrane Reviews do include non-randomized studies of not only harm but also benefit. In this issue Polus et al. found 136 reviews published in the Cochrane Library in the 3 years 2012–2015 – these covered a range of types of interventions. However, this review confirms that there are major substantive problems in the way that non-randomized studies are classified and analyzed.

from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2zTna57
via IFTTT