Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T23:29:09.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy versus effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

Carlo A. Perucci  and
Marina Davoli
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Editorial
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 163 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

References

BIBLIOGRAFIA

Agabiti, N., Ancona, C., Tancioni, V., Papini, P., Arcà, M., Forestiere, F. & Perucci, C.A. (2002). La valutazione degli esiti dell'assistenza ospedaliera in relazione ad infarto acuto del miocardio nei Lazio. Annali di lgiene 14, 1–11.Google Scholar
Agabiti, N., Ancona, C., Forestiere, F., Tancioni, V., Papini, P., Area, M. & Perucci, C.A. (2001). Volume di attivita' degli ospedali, offerta di procedure cardiache invasive e sopravvivenza in una coorte di pazienti ricoverati per infarto acuto del miocardio nei Lazio. 62° Congresso nazionale SIC, Roma 8-12 dicembre 2001.Google Scholar
Altman, D.G. & Bland, M.J. (1999). Treatment allocation in controlled trial: why randomise? British Medical Journal 328, 1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ancona, C., Agabiti, N., Forastiere, F., Area, M., Fusco, D., Ferro, S. & Perucci, C.A. (2000). Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: socioeconomic inequalities in access and in 30-day mortality. A population-based study in Rome, Italy. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54(12), 930–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ancona, C., Area, M, Agabiti, N., Saitto, C., Tancioni, V. & Perucci, C.A. (submitted for publication). Differences in access to Coronary Care Unit among patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction in Rome. British Medical Journal.Google Scholar
Benson, K. & Hartz, A.J. (2000). A comparison of observational stu-dies and randomised controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine 342, 1878–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britton, A., McKee, M., Black, N., McPherson, K., Sanderson, C. & Bain, C. (1998). Choosing between randomised and non randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 2, no. 13 (full text available at <http://www.ncchta.org>).).>Google Scholar
Chalmers, T.C., Celano, P., Sacks, H.S. & Smith, H. Jr. (1983). Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine 309, 1358–1361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Concato, J., Shah, N. & Horwitz, R.I. (2000). Randomised, controlled trials, observational studies and the hierarchy of research design. New England Journal of Medicine 342, 1887–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egger, M., Davey, Smith G. & O'Rourke, K. (2001). Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care (ed. Egger, M., Smith, G. Davey and Altman, D.G.), pp. 3–19. BMJ Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freiman, J.A., Chalmers, T.C., Smith, H. & Kuebler, R.R. (1992). The importance of beta, the type II error, and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomised controlled trial. In Medical Uses of Statistics, (ed. Bailar, J.C. and Mosteller, F.), pp. 357–373. NEJM Books: Boston.Google Scholar
Hulley, S., Grady, D., Bush, T, Furberg, C., Herrington, D., Riggs, B. & Vittinghoff, E. (1998). Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. Journal of American Medical Association 280(7), 605–613.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J.P.A., Haidich, A.B., Pappa, M., Pantazis, N., Kokori, S.I., Tektonidou, M.G., Contopulos-Ioannidis, D.G. & Lau, J. (2001). Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomised and non randomized studies. Journal of American Medical Association 286(7), 821–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, R. & Oxman, A. (1998). The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal 317, 1185–1190.Google Scholar
MacLehose, R.R., Reeves, B.C., Harvey, I.M., Sheldon, T.A., Russell, I.T. & Black, A.M.S. (2000). A systematic review of comparison of the effects sizes derived from randomised controlled trials and non RCTs. Health Technology Assessment 4, no. 34 (full text available at <http://www.ncchta.org>).Google Scholar
Materia, E., Spadea, T, Rossi, L., Cesaroni, G., Area, M. & Perucci, C.A. (1999). Diseguaglianze nell'assistenza sanitaria:ospedalizzazione e posizione socioeconomica a Roma. Epidemiologia e Prevenzione 23, 197–206.Google Scholar
Materia, E., Rossi, L., Cacciani, L., Baglio, G., Cesaroni, G., Arcà, M. & Perucci, C.A. (2002). Hysterectomy and socioeconomic position in Rome, Italy. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, 461–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapiti, E., Perucci, C.A., Agabiti, N., Ancona, C., Arcà, M., Di Lallo, D., Forastiere, F., Miceli, M & Porta, D. (1999). Diseguaglianze socioeconomiche nell'efficacia dei trattamenti sanitari. Tre esempi nel Lazio. Epidemiologia e Prevenzione 23, 153–160.Google Scholar
Rapiti, E., Porta, D., Forastiere, F., Fusco, D. & Perucci, C.A. for the Lazio AIDS Surveillance Collaborative Group. (2000). Socioeconomic status and survival of people with AIDS before and after the introduction of the highly active antiretroviral therapy. Epidemiology 11, 496–501.Google Scholar
Thornley, B. & Adams, C. (1998). Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. British Medical Journal 317, 1181–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed