Dear Colleagues,
Would anyone like to discuss this?
Regards,
Olive
Olive Goddard
Centre and Editorial Manager
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
Room 116
Institute of Health Sciences
Old Road Campus, Headington
Oxford, OX3 7LF
.....................................................................
Tel: +44 (0)1865 226991 email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: +44 (0)1865 226845 web: www.cebm.net
Mobile: 0773 484 2403 web: www.cebmh.com
>>> "Russell Blumer" <[log in to unmask]> 09/22/05 2:53 am >>>
To Whom it May Concern:
I'm involved in a debate in which someone is claiming that there is no meaningful objective evidence that the results of RCTs and 'outcomes research' and other observational studies differ significantly when evaluated in the context of a given intervention. This is to say that he believes that outcomes research is essentially equally accurate and meaningful to RCTs despite it's lower position in the 'Levels of Evidence' hierarchy. He is basing this opinion upon only one study, though it was published in the NEJM (comparing RCTs and observational studies):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10861324&query_hl=1
I am well aware of the theoretical reasons for which RCTs are considered more reliable than outcomes research and occupy a higher level in the hierarchy. What I'm looking for is something more objective, i.e., are there any important studies which demonstrate the value of RCTs over any and/or all other study designs in an objective, practical sense rather than in theoretical construct?
Thank you very much,
Russell D. Blumer, MD
Dept. of Radiology
Humber River Regional Hospital
Toronto, ON, Canada
|