Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38233894›Full record

ArticleBMC proceedings2024

Rethinking the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials and observational studies in the era of big data and advanced methods: a panel discussion.

Pamela Fernainy, Alan A Cohen, Eleanor Murray, Elena Losina, Francois Lamontagne, Nadia Sourial

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC proceedings, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
30.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Pamela FernainyDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada. pamela.fernainy@umontreal.ca.
Alan A CohenDepartment of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Eleanor MurraySchool of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Elena LosinaHarvard Medical School Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Francois LamontagneCHUS Research Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Nadia SourialDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Boston University · USBühler (United Kingdom) · GBCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAHarvard University · USUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité de Sherbrooke · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been considered the gold standard for medical evidence. However, in light of emerging methodologies in data science, many experts question the role of RCTs. Within this context, experts in the USA and Canada came together to debate whether the primacy of RCTs as the gold standard for medical evidence, still holds in light of recent methodological advances in data science and in the era of big data. The purpose of this manuscript, aims to raise awareness of the pros and cons of RCTs and observational studies in order to help guide clinicians, researchers, students, and decision-makers in making informed decisions on the quality of medical evidence to support their work. In particular, new and underappreciated advantages and disadvantages of both designs are contrasted. Innovations taking place in both of these research methodologies, which can blur the lines between the two, are also discussed. Finally, practical guidance for clinicians and future directions in assessing the quality of evidence is offered.

Indexed as

Big dataInnovationMedical evidenceObservational studyQuality of evidenceRandomized controlled trialRandomized control trialResearch methodResearch methodologiesStudy design

Identifiers

PMID38233894
PMCPMC10795211
OpenAlexW4390988769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.