There are issues with randomized trials. There are issues with non-randomized trials. That being said, if we have a simple question (i.e. "does this drug improve [x]?"), randomizing will usually help us to get a useful answer
-
-
Show this thread
-
Saying stuff like "you are ignoring REAL WORLD EVIDENCE" is nonsensical. All evidence is in the real world, some just has less biases than others
Show this thread -
Yes, in some cases RCTs will be LESS able to answer questions. But generally, especially for simple questions, they are much better than heavily biased non-randomized trials or ecological research
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think RWD was coined as a positive term by practitioners, because influential clinical researchers tended to denigrate all non-RCT data for decades, even though non-RCT data is informative to some degree. Maybe this move was a bit more successful than originally intended.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@GidMK why do you think the people saying IVM works are saying it ..? what's their motive -
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Well, yes & no. Randomisation gets the attention but control an issue too. Problem usually not that it's not "real world data", but that poorly thought out inclusion/exclusion criteria etc can result in removal of "real world participants". But that's about RCT quality, not RCTs
-
Sure, but that equally can impact non-randomized trials. It's more common in RCTs, but an issue with all research really
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I agree with the sentiment, but I hope we don't see too much "fake world data" in the lab.
-
Unfortunately, we've found quite a bit of fake data
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.