The Magic of Randomization versus the Myth of Real-World Evidence

Nonrandomized observational analyses have been promoted as alternatives to randomized clinical trials. However, randomization ensures balance between groups, whereas nonrandomized studies are often biased by between-group differences. Efforts to reduce the cost and complexity of clinical trials are...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The New England journal of medicine Vol. 382; no. 7; pp. 674 - 678
Main Authors: Collins, Rory, Bowman, Louise, Landray, Martin, Peto, Richard
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Massachusetts Medical Society 13.02.2020
Subjects:
Cancer therapies
Clinical trials
Humans
Observational Studies as Topic
Patient Selection
Patients
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - economics
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards
Research methodology
Statins
ISSN:0028-4793, 1533-4406, 1533-4406
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Nonrandomized observational analyses have been promoted as alternatives to randomized clinical trials. However, randomization ensures balance between groups, whereas nonrandomized studies are often biased by between-group differences. Efforts to reduce the cost and complexity of clinical trials are preferable to relying on observational studies.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0028-4793
1533-4406
1533-4406
DOI:10.1056/NEJMsb1901642