Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care

Dados Bibliográficos

ID23322134
AutoresNick Black (0000-0003-4771-3481, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, autor correspondente)
Ano1996
Volume312
Fascículo7040
Páginas1215-1218
Data de publicação1996-05-11
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoBMJ (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0007-1447 • E-ISSN: 0267-0623
EditoraBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215
PMID8634569
OpenAlexW2088438184
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas88
Referências citadas24

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.

Alternative medicine · Epistemology · Gold standard (test) · Medical physics · Observational methods in psychology · Observational study · Pathology · Randomized controlled trial · Rigour · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Healthcare Policy and Management · Medicine · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Psychology · Surgery