HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS CME ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Take the CME quiz: Vol. 18 No. 3, September 2007 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wiedermann, B. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Wiedermann, B. L. Related Collections Weighing the Evidence

AAP Grand Rounds 18:26 (2007)
© 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics

Weighing the Evidence: Why Pay Attention to Study Design Types?

Critics of evidence-based medicine disparage the hierarchy of study designs, which places prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCT) above retrospective designs such as cohort studies for determining best therapies.¹ The article by Conway, et al in this issue on managing children with UTI is a retrospective (historical) cohort study. How much should we rely on its findings? When considering study design, the most important caveat is that a poorly performed study is unlikely to be useful, regardless of its place in the study design hierarchy. However, is the excellent Conway study likely to be inferior to a well-designed RCT? My answer is yes, and I believe Conway, et . . . [Full Text of this Article]