• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Table 13Study categories by study design and use in analysis

Study CategoryUse in this Comparative Effectiveness Review
Survey of Existing Research (KQ1)Evaluation of Effectiveness (KQ2-4)Evaluation of Harms (KQ2–4)
Used for Systematic ReviewUsed for Meta-Analyses
Randomized clinical trialsFive key indications14146*14
Other indications10Outside Project Scope
Comparative observational studiesFive key indications and good quality222*2
Five key indications and fair quality89Insufficient Quality9
Five key indications and poor quality14Insufficient Quality for Detailed Review**14
Other indications7Outside Project Scope
Non-comparative observational studiesFive key indications and ≥ 15 patients19Contributes No Information19
Other indications or < 15 patientsOutside Projects Scope
*

For the indications of intracranial hemorrhage and adult cardiac surgery only.

**

Poor quality comparative observational studies were not reviewed in detail for the comparative effectiveness part of the report, but their data were included in the outcomes tables so that qualitative sensitivity analyses could be performed by placing their findings in the context of the findings of the higher quality studies.

Because certain study categories fell outside of the project scope, they were not used for the indicated evaluations in the comparative effectiveness review.

For the indications of intracranial hemorrhage and adult cardiac surgery only.

Poor quality comparative observational studies were not reviewed in detail for the comparative effectiveness part of the report, but their data were included in the outcomes tables so that qualitative sensitivity analyses could be performed by placing their findings in the context of the findings of the higher quality studies.

Because certain study categories fell outside of the project scope, they were not used for the indicated evaluations in the comparative effectiveness review.

From: Results

Cover of Comparative Effectiveness of In-Hospital Use of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Indications vs. Usual Care
Comparative Effectiveness of In-Hospital Use of Recombinant Factor VIIa for Off-Label Indications vs. Usual Care [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 21.
Yank V, Tuohy CV, Logan AC, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.