Linked Life Data

17058242

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/17058242

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
5
pubmed:dateCreated
2006-10-26
pubmed:abstractText
Observational analogs of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are well accepted in the study of disease risk factors, diagnosis, and prognosis. There is controversy about observational studies when the focus is on the intended benefit due to lack of blinding and poor control for unmeasured confounding. Well-designed randomized clinical trials are costly both in time and money. Therefore, existing databases are used increasingly and are often the only feasible source with which to examine delayed health effects. We reviewed the reasons for possible discrepancies between RCTs and observational studies. There can be different patient populations, differences in therapeutic regimen, control of confounding, follow-up, measuring outcome, and differences arising from the intention-to-treat analysis. Observational studies cannot replace trials, nor do trials make observational studies unnecessary. Both designs are susceptible to particular bias, so neither provides perfect information.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Nov
pubmed:issn
0270-9139
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
44
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
1075-82
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2006
pubmed:articleTitle
Beyond randomized controlled trials: a critical comparison of trials with nonrandomized studies.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. hts@dce.au.dk
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Review, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't