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

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

UROLOGY

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

Bernhard L. Wiedermann, MD, FAAP
The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

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]