Scientific evidence used in evidence-based medicine are drawn from a vast corpus comprising tens of thousands published research articles. It exists different types of studies, and usually the protocol established by researchers depends on the research question they want reply. Since the protocol and the course of the studies can vary considerably between them, their quality, too, is very variable. We tend to give more credibility to studies which strictly adhere to the fundamental principles of scientific research than studies whose methodology is less rigorous.
What the fact Solutions
The fact remains that each type of study presents its own advantages and disadvantages. Scientific evidence is naturally organized in a hierarchy; and the protocol (the method by which the study is designed and conducted) is one of the main elements that determine the place they occupy in this hierarchy. Protocols that are ranked at the top hierarchy (for example, randomized controlled clinical trials) are less likely to give incorrect or misleading results than protocols lower in the hierarchy. With the pharmaceutical evidence based medicine you can opt for the best.
- Here is the well-established hierarchy according to which the protocols are organized, and therefore the scientific evidence, in increasing order of robustness: Case studies and then Case series studies and then Cross-sectional studies and then Comparative studies retrospective and then Prospective comparative studies and then Randomized clinical trials and then Systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials In principle, clinical decisions are based on studies at the top of the hierarchy (trials randomized clinics and systematic reviews), but this does not mean that data from other types of studies are unnecessary.
The Contrary Options
On the contrary, they enrich the corpus of knowledge available on a given issue and can contribute to further studies which meet more rigorous methodological criteria. None of the studies cited above (i.e. case studies, case series studies, studies cross-sectional and retrospective comparative studies) cannot be used to substantiate (or refute) employment treatment or a particular hypothesis about the cause of a health problem or disease. However, they can provide avenues for research as to treatments that could prove to be effective against the disease in question or the factors which could be the cause. These tracks may then be tested in studies such as those described below, including scientific criteria will be more rigorous than those of the aforementioned studies.
To circumvent this shortcoming of prospective comparative studies, clinical trials are used. They have also become the preferred method for evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs another types of medical treatment. The term “randomization” means that researchers randomly distribute participants among treatment groups such that the probability of being in one or the other of the groups is the same. In this way, they are certain that the groups have an equivalent number of limbs at the start of treatment (i.e. the probability to observe a favorable or unfavorable outcome during treatment is the same for all groups). If they find a difference between the groups at the end of the study, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is attributable to treatment.