Primer: challenges in randomized and observational studies

Robert Landewé; Désirée van der Heijde

doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626

Primer: challenges in randomized and observational studies

Robert Landewé, Désirée van der Heijde

Other Departments

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered superior to observational studies, and both clinicians and researchers believe that conclusions that stem from observational research are flawed. RCTs, however, have important methodological and interpretational limitations, and particular clinical questions can only be addressed by observational research. This Review compares RCTs and observational studies with regard to particular limitations, and explains how the credibility of results from observational studies can be improved by making use of advanced analytical techniques

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	661-666
Journal	Nature clinical practice. Rheumatology
Volume	3
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626
Publication status	Published - 2007

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626

Cite this

@article{860cfa744fd2405cb3c549841fb564cd,

title = "Primer: challenges in randomized and observational studies",

abstract = "Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered superior to observational studies, and both clinicians and researchers believe that conclusions that stem from observational research are flawed. RCTs, however, have important methodological and interpretational limitations, and particular clinical questions can only be addressed by observational research. This Review compares RCTs and observational studies with regard to particular limitations, and explains how the credibility of results from observational studies can be improved by making use of advanced analytical techniques",

author = "Robert Landew{\'e} and {van der Heijde}, D{\'e}sir{\'e}e",

year = "2007",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

pages = "661--666",

journal = "Nature clinical practice. Rheumatology",

issn = "1745-8382",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Primer: challenges in randomized and observational studies

AU - Landewé, Robert

AU - van der Heijde, Désirée

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered superior to observational studies, and both clinicians and researchers believe that conclusions that stem from observational research are flawed. RCTs, however, have important methodological and interpretational limitations, and particular clinical questions can only be addressed by observational research. This Review compares RCTs and observational studies with regard to particular limitations, and explains how the credibility of results from observational studies can be improved by making use of advanced analytical techniques

AB - Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered superior to observational studies, and both clinicians and researchers believe that conclusions that stem from observational research are flawed. RCTs, however, have important methodological and interpretational limitations, and particular clinical questions can only be addressed by observational research. This Review compares RCTs and observational studies with regard to particular limitations, and explains how the credibility of results from observational studies can be improved by making use of advanced analytical techniques

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626

DO - https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626

M3 - Review article

C2 - 17968337

SN - 1745-8382

VL - 3

SP - 661

EP - 666

JO - Nature clinical practice. Rheumatology

JF - Nature clinical practice. Rheumatology

IS - 11

ER -