3 ms·
Not questioning the need for RCTs, but they have their own issues. Like, let's say you do a RCT and it shows an effect, but then in a large epi observational st
by derbOac 4y ago
Not questioning the need for RCTs, but they have their own issues. Like, let's say you do a RCT and it shows an effect, but then in a large epi observational study there isn't any? There would be some problems to work out.
RCTs are great but can have problems with generalizability to real-world conditions. Ideally you'd study both.
- q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y agoWith a sufficiently robust RCT, I'd think that indicates an issue with the observation in the observational study -- i.e., there are some confounding factors in the real world -- rather than any sort of issue with whatever effect the RCT found. Conversely, if we had a large observational study that was then contradicted by a robust RCT... well, I'd still be inclined to trust the RCT. (At the same time, I think a good observational study is, by its nature, more applicable to one's own life. If an observational study suggests that $FOOBAR is good, then -- as long as there's also a solid RCT confirming that $FOOBAR is safe -- why not try out some $FOOBAR for yourself?)