IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/sprchp/978-3-031-25859-6_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

What Can Comparisons of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies Tell Us?

In: A Medical Educator's Guide to Thinking Critically about Randomised Controlled Trials: Deconstructing the "Gold Standard"

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Steel

    (University of British Columbia, School of Population and Public Health)

  • Andrew Jones

    (University of Toronto, Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology)

Abstract

A strand of research in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) compares results of randomised and non-randomised studies to empirically assess the methodological superiority of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This chapter describes how early comparisons of randomised and non-randomised studies found that non-randomised studies tend to overestimate positive effects, while more recent reviews suggest this is not the case. These comparisons have influenced debates about RCTs for decades, initially supporting RCTs as the preferred methodology in EBM and later bolstering critiques of RCTs’ “gold standard” status. However, learning from these comparisons requires careful exploration of auxiliary hypotheses about how the results of RCTs and non-randomised studies would be expected to differ, on the assumption that RCTs are in fact superior. Two such auxiliary hypotheses, labelled directional bias and random bias, are discussed. While more recent reviews call directional bias into question, random bias, though testable, has yet to be thoroughly investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Steel & Andrew Jones, 2024. "What Can Comparisons of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies Tell Us?," Springer Books, in: Margaret MacDougall (ed.), A Medical Educator's Guide to Thinking Critically about Randomised Controlled Trials: Deconstructing the "Gold Standard", chapter 0, pages 145-161, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-031-25859-6_6
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-25859-6_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-031-25859-6_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.