3 ms·
> Usually all the basic concerns have been accounted for in the actual study. No. It's an observational study. If they'd account for the basic concerns they'd
by hannob 10y ago
> Usually all the basic concerns have been accounted for in the actual study.
No. It's an observational study. If they'd account for the basic concerns they'd do an RCT. Yes, that's more work and takes longer.
> It's seldom an issue of "those stupid PhDs and experts in their field, they didn't think of a confounder a random internet person can come up with in 5 seconds".
No, you don't understand the problem. Confounders everyone can come up with can be controlled for (although it gets complicated the more you consider). But the major problem are unknown confounders. You can't control for things you don't know.
- timr 10y ago"Observational study" does not mean "bad science". There are good and bad observational studies, and without reading the paper, you can't know which one this is. Moreover, your assertion that only random trials can be controlled is just completely wrong - there are plenty of ways to do controlled studies on observational data. You're engaged in the scientific version of the middlebrow dismissal. In health sciences, a lot of good work starts as well-controlled observational science. In fact, for a question like "does sauna use lead to a reduced risk of dementia over a human lifetime?", pretty much the only way you're ever getting the funding to do an "RCT" is to start with lots of observational evidence.