prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |review
Types of epidemiologic designs provide comparison groups, but the comparisons may introduce bias that could affect the validity of the evaluation of treatment effects. For example, in a comparison of patients undergoing a new treatment with a historical cohort receiving the old treatment, there may be temporal trends in health care or other factors related to the outcome. In addition, the quality of data available for historical controls may differ from the quality of data collected for patients receiving the new treatment because of different diagnostic criteria, measurement standards, completeness of records, etc. Thus, lack of standard criteria could yield spurious results.

Database studies tend to be inexpensive and allow evaluation of large numbers of patients, but potential bias in treatment selection, outcome assessment, and other factors make them a lower standard of evidence.

Although these types of studies improve on case studies or case series because they offer comparison groups, problems with selection of patients for treatment and lack of comparability of treatment groups complicate the analysis. The randomized, controlled clinical trial is designed to reduce such biases.

prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |review