RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      관찰 연구에서 선택 삐뚤림과 교란 변수를 최소화하기 위한 방법에 대한 고찰 = A Review of Methods for Minimizing Selection Biases and Confounders in Observational Studies

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A60036196

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Although well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most scientifically rigorous method for testing a hypothesis and have held the uppermost position in the hierarchy of evidence- based medicine as level I evidence, RCTs can be impractical or unethical in clinical settings. Observational studies are the best available alternative when RCTs are unavailable. Well-designed observational studies in the fields of both clinical and epidemiological research have been shown to provide similar results as those of RCTs with level II or III evidence; however, there are major methological limitations of observational studies including biases and confounders. To overcome these limitations, it is very important to consider or avoid possible factors (biases and confounders) which can interfere with adequate interpretation of results. This article provides an overview of selection biases and confounders as well as stratigies to minimize biases and confounders in the design and analytic phase of an observational study. Understanding of selection biases and confounders in observational studies and methods for controlling biases and confounders will assist investigators in conducting well-designed observational studies. (Korean J Asthma Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;32:8-13)
      번역하기

      Although well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most scientifically rigorous method for testing a hypothesis and have held the uppermost position in the hierarchy of evidence- based medicine as level I evidence, RCTs can be impracti...

      Although well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most scientifically rigorous method for testing a hypothesis and have held the uppermost position in the hierarchy of evidence- based medicine as level I evidence, RCTs can be impractical or unethical in clinical settings. Observational studies are the best available alternative when RCTs are unavailable. Well-designed observational studies in the fields of both clinical and epidemiological research have been shown to provide similar results as those of RCTs with level II or III evidence; however, there are major methological limitations of observational studies including biases and confounders. To overcome these limitations, it is very important to consider or avoid possible factors (biases and confounders) which can interfere with adequate interpretation of results. This article provides an overview of selection biases and confounders as well as stratigies to minimize biases and confounders in the design and analytic phase of an observational study. Understanding of selection biases and confounders in observational studies and methods for controlling biases and confounders will assist investigators in conducting well-designed observational studies. (Korean J Asthma Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;32:8-13)

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼