Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Heather E Elphick a University of Liverpool Institute of Child Health,
Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool L12 2AP, b Respiratory Unit, Alder Hey
Children's Hospital, c Wolfson Institute of Preventive
Medicine, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and
Dentistry, University of London EC1M 6B9 Correspondence
to: R L Smyth r.l.smyth@liv.ac.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials provide an evidence base for treatment but too often fail to give adequate information on long term outcomes. Elphick and colleagues discuss the limitations of the systematic review of randomised controlled trials for patients with chronic or lifelong diseases and suggest that long term observational studies have a place in the evaluation of the benefits and risks of treatment
Synthesis of evidence from systematic reviews of randomised
controlled trials is considered the gold standard when evaluating the
effectiveness of treatments, yet systematic reviews do not always place
as much emphasis on information about adverse effects or safety
issues.
1 2
In people with chronic, or lifelong, diseases
long term outcomes are particularly important but are much less likely
to be evaluated in randomised controlled trials. We discuss the results
of a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials of
antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis, which provided
Read all Rapid Responses