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.
Key Points
-
Randomized controlled trials have limitations that should not be ignored
-
Observational studies are closer to clinical practice, and can provide a wealth of information; however, these studies are prone to several biases
-
Recent advances in the analysis of observational studies can partially adjust for these biases
-
Prospective studies with multiple longitudinal assessments should be analyzed with appropriate longitudinal analytical techniques
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barton S (2000) Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ 321: 255–256
Pocock SJ and Elbourne DR (2000) Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 342: 1907–1909
Benson K and Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342: 1878–1886
Pincus T and Sokka T (2004) Clinical trials in rheumatic diseases: designs and limitations. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 30: 701–724
Pincus T and Sokka T (2004) Should contemporary rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials be more like standard patient care and vice versa? Ann Rheum Dis 63 (Suppl 2): ii32–ii39
Britton A et al. (1999) Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4: 112–121
Carné X and Arnaiz JA (2000) Methodological and political issues in clinical pharmacology research by the year 2000. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55: 781–785
Frieling UM et al. (2000) A randomized, 12-year primary-prevention trial of beta carotene supplementation for nonmelanoma skin cancer in the physician's health study. Arch Dermatol 136: 179–184
Krishnan E et al. (2004) Attrition bias in rheumatoid arthritis databanks: a case study of 6,346 patients in 11 databanks and 65,649 administrations of the Health Assessment Questionnaire. J Rheumatol 31: 1320–1326
Farewell VT (2004) Studies of attrition in rheumatological databases. J Rheumatol 31: 1244–1245
Landewé RB (2003) The benefits of early treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: confounding by indication, and the issue of timing. Arthritis Rheum 48: 1–5
van der Heijde D et al. (2005) Presentation and analysis of data on radiographic outcome in clinical trials: experience from the TEMPO study. Arthritis Rheum 52: 49–60
D'Agostino RB (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17: 2265–2281
Bukhari MA et al. (2003) Influence of disease-modifying therapy on radiographic outcome in inflammatory polyarthritis at five years: results from a large observational inception study. Arthritis Rheum 48: 46–53
Fessler BJ et al. (2005) Systemic lupus erythematosus in three ethnic groups: XVI. Association of hydroxychloroquine use with reduced risk of damage accrual. Arthritis Rheum 52: 1473–1480
Landewé RB et al. (2002) COBRA combination therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: long-term structural benefits of a brief intervention. Arthritis Rheum 46: 347–356
Liang KY and Zeger SL (1993) Regression analysis for correlated data. Annu Rev Public Health 14: 43–68
Zeger SL and Liang KY (1992) An overview of methods for the analysis of longitudinal data. Stat Med 11: 1825–1839
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Landewé, R., van der Heijde, D. Primer: challenges in randomized and observational studies. Nat Rev Rheumatol 3, 661–666 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncprheum0626
This article is cited by
-
Randomized Controlled Trials for Diagnostic Imaging: Conceptual and Pratical Problems
Topoi (2019)
-
A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects
European Spine Journal (2010)
-
Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry
European Spine Journal (2009)