The issue of causality and RCTs versus observational studies comes up
often in our discussions. We have summarized our thoughts and some key
references at
http://www.delfini.org/Delfini_Primer_Problems_Obs_Interventions.pdf
Best, Mike
> Dear all
> I'd like to post this question to the group that I have been
> thinking about for some time... Is there a scientific method that
> allows us to LOGICALLY distinguish the cause-effect from the
> coincidence? David Hume, one of the most influential philosophers of
> all times, concluded that there is no such a method. This was
> before RCTs were "invented". Many people have made cogent arguments
> that (a well done) RCT is the ONLY method that can allow us to draw
> the inferences about causation. Because this is not possible in the
> observational studies, RCTs are considered (all other things being
> equal) to provide more credible evidence than non-RCTs. However,
> some philosophers have challenged this supposedly unique feature of
> RCT- they claim that RCTs cannot (on theoretical and logical
> ground) establish the relationship between the cause and effect any
> better than non-RCTs. I would appreciate some thoughts from the group:
> 1. Can RCT distinguish between the cause and effect vs.
> coincidences? (under which -theoretical- conditions?)
> If the answer is "no", is there any other method that can help
> establish the cause and effect relationship?
> I believe the answer to this question is of profound relevance to EBM.
>
> Thanks
> Ben Djulbegovic
>
>
>
>
Michael E Stuart MD
President and Medical Director, Delfini Group
Clinical Asst Professor, UW School of Medicine
6831 31st Ave N.E.
Seattle, Washington 98115
206-854-3680 Mobile Phone
206-527-6146 Home Office
[log in to unmask]
|