Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials?
The LancetPublished 1 June 2006Open access
Paul Glasziou, Ben Djulbegovic, Amanda Burls
Citations28
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score12.11
SNIP22.72
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
Study Snapshot
ObjectiveStudy objective
MethodsResearch methodology
PopulationPopulation studied
Sample sizeSample sizes
OutcomesStudy outcomes here
ResultsStudy results comes here
LimitationsResearch study limitations comes here
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
Abstract
We were delighted to see evidence from Claiborne Johnstone and colleagues that randomised trials are an extremely cost-effective health-care investment (April 22, p 1319).1 However, Johnstone and colleagues made no mention of whether previous systematic reviews addressed whether these trials were needed and what questions were still unanswered.
Keywords
Decision SciencesMedicineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
JAMAA Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts
1,464 Citations1992Elliott M. Antman
Finding and analyzing all therapeutic trials in a given field has become such a difficult and specialized task that the clinical experts called on to summarize the evidence in a timely fashion need access to better databases and new statistical techniques to assist them.
The LancetEffect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs
155 Citations2006S. Claiborne Johnston, J. D. Rootenberg +3 more
The public return on investment in clinical trials has been substantial, and although results led to increases in health-care expenditures, health gains were large and valuable.
Annals of the New York Academy of SciencesCollaborative Worldwide Overviews of Randomized Trials
7 Citations1993Peter Sandercock
Detailed collaborative overviews have many benefits: the results are particularly clear and therefore have substantial public health impact; the areas of statistical and medical agreement on the evidence can be defined; the Areas of uncertainty (and hence future research priorities) are clarified; and the group can disseminate the results particularly widely and rapidly.