http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/m...t/studies.html
They claim randomized trials are the best approach when there is no certain treatment. Thus this applies to sub-surgical scoliosis curves.
They equate controlled studies with retrospective studies. Apparently they are calling prospective control studies "randomized trials" (i.e., the "best" approach in their opinion). So I agree that prospective controlled studies, irrespective of what you call them, are the best approach forward. It's how science operates or should operate as far as I know.
That said, I don't see why a retrospective controlled study is worse than a prospective controlled study if you have appropriate study criteria available.
They claim randomized trials are the best approach when there is no certain treatment. Thus this applies to sub-surgical scoliosis curves.
They equate controlled studies with retrospective studies. Apparently they are calling prospective control studies "randomized trials" (i.e., the "best" approach in their opinion). So I agree that prospective controlled studies, irrespective of what you call them, are the best approach forward. It's how science operates or should operate as far as I know.
That said, I don't see why a retrospective controlled study is worse than a prospective controlled study if you have appropriate study criteria available.
Comment