This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ho, P. M. Articles by Masoudi, F. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ho, P. M. Articles by Masoudi, F. A. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Epidemiology

(Circulation. 2008;118:1675-1684.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Key Issues in Outcomes Research

Evaluating the Evidence

Is There a Rigid Hierarchy?

P. Michael Ho, MD, PhD; Pamela N. Peterson, MD, MSPH; Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH

From the Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center (P.M.H.), University of Colorado Denver (P.M.H., P.N.P., F.A.M.), and Denver Health Medical Center (P.N.P., F.A.M.), Denver, Colo.

Correspondence to Frederick A. Masoudi, MD, MSPH, Cardiology, MC 0960, 777 Bannock St, Denver, CO 80204. E-mail fred.masoudi@uchsc.edu

Key Words: cardiovascular diseases • epidemiology • research design

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Health outcomes research applies a wide range of methods to identify optimal approaches to determine optimal approaches to determine the effects of healthcare interventions and policies. Critical evaluation skills are necessary to navigate the evidence and identify studies that should influence clinical decision making and policy. A hierarchical "pyramid of evidence" that emphasizes randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) has been promulgated as the approach to judging study design and quality. Whereas this hierarchy may be suitable for the evaluation of efficacy, it may be inappropriate for many health outcomes research questions. This article examines the relevance of this construct to questions beyond those of therapeutic efficacy and discusses the essential role of study designs beyond RCTs. The strengths and weaknesses of study designs commonly encountered in the medical literature are reviewed. The article concludes with 2 case studies that apply the concepts reviewed and illustrate the need to match the study design with the research question. Of note, the concepts of internal validity, external validity, confounding, and bias are central to the discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of study designs in the medical literature. Readers not familiar with these concepts should refer to the Appendix in the online-only Data Supplement for clarification.

The Pyramid of Evidence: A Useful Construct?
Traditionally, the design of a study has been considered a principal barometer of the validity of its findings. In this construct, different study designs are considered in the context of a pyramid of evidence, in which studies most susceptible to threats to internal validity reside at the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. M. Krumholz Outcomes Research: Myths and Realities Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes, January 1, 2009; 2(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]