![]() ![]() In clinical research, and in the field of nephrology in particular, the analysis of large patient registers or clinical databases provides information whose usefulness should not be underestimated, 1,2 and which may complement CT results. An OS, on the other hand, measures effectiveness that cannot feasibly be obtained in any other way. However, the controlled conditions found in a CT mean that their results may not be directly applicable to patients in clinical practice. Observational studies (OS) hold a lower position in the evidence rankings, and are considered to have less probative force for the following reasons: a) they may overestimate the effects of the treatment due to patient heterogeneity b) they may contain biases that are inherent to their design and nature and c) on some occasions, the interpretation of results may be confusing. Results from randomised clinical trials (CT) and CT meta-analyses provide the best scientific evidence for evaluating the effect of a treatment according to the hierarchical rankings for clinical research methods. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |