New evidence about RCTs vs. observational research on harms of medical interventions

A new article of interest published in PLoSMed

A review of 58 meta-analytic contrasts between RCT and observational evidence on harms, summarizing hundreds of RCTs and observational studies was yesterday published in PLoSMed.

The article, authored by Su Golder et al. from the University of York, provides empirical evidence for the view that observational research can be as credible as randomized when investigating harms.

Read more

©  ISPM - University of Bern 2009