Nonrandomized observational studies have been touted by some as being a viable alternative to randomized clinical trials, but are they really?
A recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine looks at how these claims hold up.
“Randomization ensures balance between groups, whereas nonrandomized studies are often biased by between-group differences,” the researchers write. “Efforts to reduce the cost and complexity of clinical trials are preferable to relying on observational studies.”
To read the full article on NEJM, click here.
