Well-done randomized trials provide accurate estimates of treatment effect by producing groups that are similar on all measures except for the intervention of interest. However, inferences of efficacy in tightly-controlled experimental settings may not translate into similar effectiveness in real-world settings. Observational studies generally enable inferences over a wider range of patient characteristics and evaluation of a broader range of outcomes over a longer period than randomized trials. However, clinicians are often reluctant to incorporate the findings of observational studies into clinical practice. Reason for uncertainty regarding observational studies include a lack of familiarity with observational research methods, occasional disagreements between results of observational studies and randomized trials, the perceived risk of spurious results from systematic bias, and prior teaching that randomized trials are the most reliable source of medical evidence. We propose that a better understanding...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gershon et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: