Interpreting the results of observational research: chance is not such a fine thing.
In a randomised controlled trial, if the design is not flawed, different outcomes in the study groups must be due to the intervention itself or to chance imbalances between the groups. Because of this tests of statistical significance are used to assess the validity of results from randomised studies. Most published papers in medical research, however, describe observational studies which do not include randomised intervention. This paper argues that the continuing application of tests of significance to such non-randomised investigations is inappropriate. It draws a distinction between bias and chance imbalance on the one hand (both randomised and observational studies can be affected) and confounding on the other (a unique problem for observational investigations). It concludes that neither the P value nor the 95% confidence interval should be used as evidence for the validity of an observational result.
Brennan
P
P
ARC Epidemiological Research Unit, University of Manchester Medical School.
Croft
P
P
D015982:Bias; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D004812:Epidemiologic Methods; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design