The need for randomization as a means of controlling confounders is accentuated in the study of intended effects (efficacy) as compared with unintended ones (toxicity). The basic reason is that the indication for intervention is inherently a confounder in the study of efficacy but not of toxicity, whereas contraindications represent only a minor confounder even in toxicity research. Moreover, control of the indication in non-experimental terms is commonly infeasible owing to the complexity and subtlety of the indication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olli S. Miettinen (1983) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: