Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of study design because randomization ensures that differences in outcomes between a treatment and control group reflect the causal effect of treatment. Although RCTs greatly benefit science and society for this reason, they often cannot be conducted because of logistical, ethical, or resource constraints.1 Researchers are thus confronted with many questions left unanswered.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Guduguntla V, McWilliams JM. Exploiting Clinical Decision-making Thresholds to Recover Causal Effects From Observational Data: Randomization Without Trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(6):774–775. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0923
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.