Quasi-experimental design

References

• Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. For the STROBE initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:1628–1654.
   Google Scholar
• Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the international society for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report–part II. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1053–1061.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report–part III. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1062–1073.
   Google Scholar
• Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, et al. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2012;15(2):217–230.
   Google Scholar
• Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics in Society). 2008;171(2):481–502.
   Google Scholar
• Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1986;81(396):945–960.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad V, Jena AB. Prespecified falsification end points: can they validate true observational associations? JAMA. 2013;309(3):241–242.
   Google Scholar
• Schneeweiss S, Patrick AR, Stürmer T, et al. Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Med Care. 2007;45(10 Supl 2):S131–S142.
   Google Scholar
• Danaei G, Tavakkoli M, Hernán MA. Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(4):250–262.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson WG, Demakis J, Fihn SD, et al. Cooperative studies in health services research in the department of veterans affairs. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:134–148.
   Google Scholar
• Estabrooks PA, Boyle M, Emmons KM, et al. Harmonized patient-reported data elements in the electronic health record: supporting meaningful use by primary care action on health behaviors and key psychosocial factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(4):575–582.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsitch M, Tchetgen Tchetgen E, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–388.
   Google Scholar
• Maciejewski ML, Weaver EM, Hebert PL. Synonyms in health services research methodology. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68(2):156–176.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts C, Troop N, Connan F, et al. The effects of stress on body weight: biological and psychological predictors of change in BMI. Obesity. 2007;15:3045–3055.
   Google Scholar
• Austin PC. A Tutorial and case study in propensity score analysis: an application to estimating the effect of in-hospital smoking cessation counseling on mortality. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(1):119–151.
   Google Scholar
• Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, et al. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010;11:85.
   Google Scholar
• Lipkovich I, Dmitrienko A, D'Agostino B R, Sr. Tutorial in biostatistics: data-driven subgroup identification and analysis in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2017;36(1):136–196.
   Google Scholar
• Newhouse JP, McClellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:17–34.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(4):722–729.
   Google Scholar
• Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–1886.
   Google Scholar
• Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887–1892.
   Google Scholar
• Furlan AD, Tomlinson G, Jadad AA, et al. Methodological quality and homogeneity influenced agreement between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of the same intervention for back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(3):209–231.
   Google Scholar