Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12897594

Methodologic issues in observational studies.

Abstract

Assessment of orthopaedic treatments depends primarily on studies that analyze data abstracted from medical records or collected prospectively for research purposes. Because treatment in these studies is determined by the surgeon and the patient rather than controlled by the researcher, these studies are referred to as observational. Most orthopaedics research uses the observational study design because it is less expensive and more timely, includes more representative patients, and leaves medical decision-making under the control of the physician and the patient. Biases associated with observational studies are influenced greatly by study design, methods of data collection, and statistical analysis. All observational studies should report factors influencing relevance (characteristics of patients, treatments, and outcome measures), and factors that influence validity (methods to obtain information and patient risk factors that may differ between treatments). Improved standards for reporting observational studies will facilitate the interpretation of results and the comparison of studies with conflicting results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Arthur Hartz, J L Marsh. 2003. Methodologic issues in observational studies.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000079325.41006.95

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Psychiatric disorder criteria and their application to research in different racial groups.

BACKGROUND: The advent of standardized classification and assessment of psychiatric disorders, and considerable joint efforts among many countries has led to the reporting of international rates of psychiatric disorders, and inevitably, their comparison between different racial groups. RESULTS: In neurologic diseases with defined genetic etiologies, the same genetic cause has different phenotypes in different racial groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest that genetic differences between races mean that diagnostic criteria refined in one racial group, may not be directly and simply applicable to other racial groups and thus more effort needs to be expended on defining diseases in other groups. Cross-racial confounds (in addition to cultural confounds) make the interpretation of rates in different groups even more hazardous than seems to have been appreciated.

Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic↗