bias

A thorough understanding of the pros and cons of the various study designs is critical to correct interpretation of their results. Retrospective studies are an important tool to study rare diseases, manifestations and outcomes. Findings of these studies can form the basis on which prospective studies are planned. Retrospective studies however have several limitations owing to their design. Since they depend on review of charts that were originally not designed to collect data for research, some information is bound to be missing.

Practising physicians individualise treatments, hoping to achieve optimal outcomes by tackling relevant patient variables. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is universally accepted as the best means of comparison. Yet doctors sometimes wonder if particular patients might benefit more from treatments that fared worse in the RCT comparisons. Such clinicians may even feel ostracised by their peers for stepping outside treatments based on RCTs and guidelines. Are RCTs the only acceptable evaluations of how patient care can be assessed and delivered?

Practising physicians individualise treatments, hoping to achieve optimal outcomes by tackling relevant patient variables. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is universally accepted as the best means of comparison. Yet doctors sometimes wonder if particular patients might benefit more from treatments that fared worse in the RCT comparisons. Such clinicians may even feel ostracised by their peers for stepping outside treatments based on RCTs and guidelines. Are RCTs the only acceptable evaluations of how patient care can be assessed and delivered?