Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 July 2003
- journal article
- theory and-methods
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Vol. 57 (7), 527-529
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.7.527
Abstract
Debate is ongoing about the nature and use of evidence in public health decision making, and there seems to be an emerging consensus that the “hierarchy of evidence” may be difficult to apply in other settings. It may be unhelpful however to simply abandon the hierarchy without having a framework or guide to replace it. One such framework is discussed. This is based around a matrix, and emphasises the need to match research questions to specific types of research. This emphasis on methodological appropriateness, and on typologies rather than hierarchies of evidence may be helpful in organising and appraising public health evidence.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- The evidence debateJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2002
- Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventionsJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2002
- The Guide to Community Preventive Services: a public health imperativeAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2001
- A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelinesBMJ, 2001
- Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research DesignsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- Developing the guide to community preventive services—overview and rationaleAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2000
- Methods in health services research: Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studiesBMJ, 1999
- Getting research findings into practice: When to act on the evidenceBMJ, 1998
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995