What is it about?

Argues that the indefinite unmeasured confounders argument of Worrall is not a valid criticism of probabilistic arguments for randomisation. Furthermore, even if this criticism were valid it would not be sufficient to give observational studies the same status as interventional ones.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Shows that "RCTs offer unique epistemological advantages that cannot be realised via observational studies."

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: What does randomisation achieve?, Evidence-Based Medicine, June 2011, BMJ,
DOI: 10.1136/ebm.2011.100061.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page