The importance of randomised vs non-randomised trials

Benjamin Djulbegovic, Paul Glasziou, Iain Chalmers

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

[Extract] We thank Hertzel Gerstein and colleagues for reminding us of the importance of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, RCTs require uncertainty about the benefits of an intervention, and once an intervention has already become health policy, ethical issues with doing an RCT arise. For example, most childhood vaccines were introduced without being tested for their effects on overall health. Now, real-world studies suggest that vaccines could have non-specific effects, with important implications for overall health.2 However, most people would consider testing recommended vaccines in RCTs to be unethical. We have shown how triangulation of multiple sources of evidence with different confounder structures can be used to show causality when RCTs are not feasible
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)634-635
Number of pages2
JournalThe Lancet
Volume394
Issue number10199
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Vaccines
Health Policy
Ethics
Causality
Uncertainty
Health

Cite this

Djulbegovic, Benjamin ; Glasziou, Paul ; Chalmers, Iain. / The importance of randomised vs non-randomised trials. In: The Lancet. 2019 ; Vol. 394, No. 10199. pp. 634-635.
@article{09624a0d6bf44b22bfc01270b2e94422,
title = "The importance of randomised vs non-randomised trials",
abstract = "[Extract] We thank Hertzel Gerstein and colleagues for reminding us of the importance of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, RCTs require uncertainty about the benefits of an intervention, and once an intervention has already become health policy, ethical issues with doing an RCT arise. For example, most childhood vaccines were introduced without being tested for their effects on overall health. Now, real-world studies suggest that vaccines could have non-specific effects, with important implications for overall health.2 However, most people would consider testing recommended vaccines in RCTs to be unethical. We have shown how triangulation of multiple sources of evidence with different confounder structures can be used to show causality when RCTs are not feasible",
author = "Benjamin Djulbegovic and Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31128-6",
language = "English",
volume = "394",
pages = "634--635",
journal = "Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "10199",

}

The importance of randomised vs non-randomised trials. / Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Glasziou, Paul; Chalmers, Iain.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 394, No. 10199, 24.08.2019, p. 634-635.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The importance of randomised vs non-randomised trials

AU - Djulbegovic, Benjamin

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Chalmers, Iain

PY - 2019/8/24

Y1 - 2019/8/24

N2 - [Extract] We thank Hertzel Gerstein and colleagues for reminding us of the importance of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, RCTs require uncertainty about the benefits of an intervention, and once an intervention has already become health policy, ethical issues with doing an RCT arise. For example, most childhood vaccines were introduced without being tested for their effects on overall health. Now, real-world studies suggest that vaccines could have non-specific effects, with important implications for overall health.2 However, most people would consider testing recommended vaccines in RCTs to be unethical. We have shown how triangulation of multiple sources of evidence with different confounder structures can be used to show causality when RCTs are not feasible

AB - [Extract] We thank Hertzel Gerstein and colleagues for reminding us of the importance of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, RCTs require uncertainty about the benefits of an intervention, and once an intervention has already become health policy, ethical issues with doing an RCT arise. For example, most childhood vaccines were introduced without being tested for their effects on overall health. Now, real-world studies suggest that vaccines could have non-specific effects, with important implications for overall health.2 However, most people would consider testing recommended vaccines in RCTs to be unethical. We have shown how triangulation of multiple sources of evidence with different confounder structures can be used to show causality when RCTs are not feasible

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070874758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31128-6

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31128-6

M3 - Letter

VL - 394

SP - 634

EP - 635

JO - Lancet

JF - Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 10199

ER -