Abstract
The view is widely held that experimental methods (randomised controlled trials) are the "gold standard" for evaluation and that observational methods (cohort and case control studies) have little or no value. This ignores the limitations of randomised trials, which may prove unnecessary, inappropriate, impossible, or inadequate. Many of the problems of conducting randomised trials could often, in theory, be overcome, but the practical implications for researchers and funding bodies mean that this is often not possible. The false conflict between those who advocate randomised trials in all situations and those who believe observational data provide sufficient evidence needs to be replaced with mutual recognition of the complementary roles of the two approaches. Researchers should be united in their quest for scientific rigour in evaluation, regardless of the method used.
Keywords
Observational studyRigourRandomized controlled trialGold standard (test)Observational methods in psychologyMedicineAlternative medicinePsychologyMedical physicsEpistemologySurgeryPathology
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?
Randomised controlled trials and observational studies are often seen as mutually exclusive, if not opposing, methods of clinical research. Two recent reports, however, identifi...
Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of treatments under real world conditions and, as such, it is important that they are conducted...
Unpublished rating scales: A major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia
Background A recent review suggested an association between using unpublished scales in clinical trials and finding significant results. Aims To determine whether such an associ...
A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled Trials
We found little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from tho...
Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies
In previous articles we have focused on the potentials, principles, and pitfalls of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.1 2 3 4 5 Meta-analysis of observational data i...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1996
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 7040
- Pages
- 1215-1218
- Citations
- 1599
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
1599
OpenAlex
Cite This
Nicholas Black
(1996).
Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care.
BMJ
, 312
(7040)
, 1215-1218.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215