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

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.

[1]  Cross design synthesis: a new strategy for studying medical outcomes? , 1992, The Lancet.

[2]  N. Black The relationship between evaluative research and audit. , 1992, Journal of public health medicine.

[3]  K. Schulz,et al.  Subverting randomization in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[4]  HarveyD White,et al.  Angioplasty versus bypass surgery , 1995, The Lancet.

[5]  M. Zelen A new design for randomized clinical trials. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  D. Hanley,et al.  Symptom status and quality of life following prostatectomy. , 1988, JAMA.

[7]  R J Lilford,et al.  Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. , 1995, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[8]  F. Dorey,et al.  Making do without randomised trials. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  P. Walsh,et al.  A comparison of transurethral surgery with watchful waiting for moderate symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[10]  N. Black,et al.  Volume and Outcome in Hospital Care: Evidence, Explanations and Implications , 1990, Health services management research.

[11]  J. Dunn,et al.  The selection of cases for randomised trials: a registry survey of concurrent trial and non-trial patients. The British Stomach Cancer Group. , 1992, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[13]  L. Somorjay Minimizing harm and maximizing benefit during innovation in health care: controlled or uncontrolled experimentation? , 1987, Birth.

[14]  Rachel Bawden,et al.  Spontaneous resolution of severe chronic glue ear in children and the effect of adenoidectomy, tonsillectomy, and insertion of ventilation tubes (grommets). , 1993, BMJ.

[15]  E. Korn,et al.  Randomised clinical trials with clinician-preferred treatment , 1991, The Lancet.

[16]  R. N. Stauffer Ten-year follow-up study of total hip replacement. , 1982, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Outcomes Research, PORTs, and Health Care Reform , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[18]  "Opren Scandal" , 1983, The Lancet.

[19]  M A Hlatky,et al.  Comparison of predictions based on observational data with the results of randomized controlled clinical trials of coronary artery bypass surgery. , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  C. Brewin,et al.  Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. , 1989, BMJ.

[21]  T A Sheldon,et al.  Volume and outcome in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: true association or artefact? , 1995, BMJ.

[22]  H. Glennerster,et al.  What do we know about fundholding in general practice? , 1995, BMJ.

[23]  A. G. Johnson,et al.  Surgery as a placebo , 1994, The Lancet.

[24]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[25]  C. Stiller,et al.  Centralised treatment, entry to trials and survival. , 1994, British Journal of Cancer.