Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »
New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Get the iPhone MyHealth app »
Get the Android MyHealth app »
Abstract
Concerns about the external validity of traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), together with the widespread availability of real-world data and advanced data analytic tools, have led to claims that common sense and clinical observation, rather than RCTs, should be the preferred method to generate evidence to support clinical decision-making. However, over the past 4 decades, results from well-done RCTs have repeatedly contradicted practices supported by common sense and clinical observation. Common sense and clinical observation fail for several reasons: incomplete understanding of pathophysiology, biases and unmeasured confounding in observational research, and failure to understand risks and benefits of treatments within complex systems. Concerns about traditional RCT models are legitimate, but randomization remains a critical tool to understand the causal relationship between treatments and outcomes. Instead, development and promulgation of tools to apply randomization to real-world data are needed to build the best evidence base in cardiovascular medicine.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.069
View details for PubMedID 32731936