This page is a repository of useful resources on all things EBM.

Sources of evidence

Where to find evidence (especially vetted/pre-appraised)?

Books and useful articles

  1. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice

  2. JAMA Guide to Statistics and Methods podcasts

  3. Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews

  4. Hill AB. The environment and disease: Association or causation. Proc R Soc Med 1965;58:295-300 (Sir Bradford-Hill's 9 proposed criteria for determining causation)

  5. EQUATOR network (repository of study reporting guidelines, including PRISMA [systematic reviews/meta-analyses], CONSORT [RCTs], STROBE [observational studies], AGREE II [guidelines], and many more)

  6. Making sense of statistics in clinical trial reports. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2536-49 (fantastic review of fundamental statistical concepts used in clinical trials)

  7. Statistical controvesies in reporting of clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2648-62 (review of various aspects of clinical trial reporting, including secondary outcomes, intention-to-treat vs per-protocol, subgroup analyses, and interpreting unexpected/surprising findings)

  8. Design of major randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2757-66 (review of key design considerations for clinical trials)

  9. Challenging issues in clinical trial design. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2886-98 (review of alternate clinical trial designs, including non-inferiority trials, factorial trials, and adaptive designs)

Generalizability (external validity)

  1. Rothwell PM. Factors that can affect the external validity of randomized controlled trials. PLoS Clin Trials 2006;1:e9.

Risk of bias (internal validity)

  1. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60

  2. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2

  3. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:982-9

  4. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:429-38

  5. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: A systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ 2013;185:E201-11

  6. Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA 2010;303:1180-7

  7. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117

  8. Turgeon RD. Critically appraising randomized controlled trials: Is there substance in subgroups? UBC PSSJ 2013;1:19-21

  9. Evaluation of evidence of statistical support and corroboration of subgroup claims in randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2017;epub

Non-inferiority trials

  1. How to use a noninferiority trial: Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2012;308:2605-11

  2. Simplifying and interpreting the FACTS of noninferiority trials: A stepwise approach. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2014;71:1926

  3. Good enough: A primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:62-9

  4. Non-inferiority study design: Lessons to be learned from cardiovascular trials. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1318-24

Systematic reviews

  1. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: Rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19:591-603

  2. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998;279:281-6

  3. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(1):MR000006

  4. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 2000;356:1228-31

  5. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: Reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 2012;344:d7202

  6. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65

  7. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735-40

  8. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60

  9. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 1993;2:121-45

  10. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:469-75

  11. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: An Empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med 2000;19:1707-28

  12. PRISMA 2020 statement (BMJ article)

Study methods/reporting

Miscellaneous neat tools/resources