THE ARROW OF TIME IN CLINICAL STUDIES
I’m working on the reasons why researchers choose retrospective vs prospective study design.
Preliminary data -not yet published- on a sample of 1,438,872 studies/trials, (yrs 1960-2017), support a prevalence of retrospective vs prospective, respectively 55% vs 45%.
For this reason I’ve prepared a survey made up by 6 short question. I would be grateful if you would complete the questionnaire that will require a maximum of 3 minutes.
Link to the survey>>>>
https://it.surveymonkey.com/r/D5M97QV
retrospective studies are easier due to the use already collected data in your research rather than collecting new data.. this will save you both time and money..
however, retrospective design still has its limitations, making prospective design better methodologically
I work on epidemiological studies, not clinical studies. In either case, one factor that is relevant that is not in your survey is the amount of time it takes to conduct the study. Prospective designs can take longer.
Thanks Yong, Anas and Martha for the contribution to the discussion, I fully agree, but I would like to have your answer on this more precise question:
Formally, to find statistical associations between events in a retrospective or perspective way has the same significance ?
See figure.
If we start from event B and we look back to see if event A has a statistically significant association with B, is the same as we wait for event C, which has yet to happen, to see if it will have a statistically significant association with B?
One of the reasons may be the increasing role of Real World Data (RWD) in healthcare. With RWD the collected data are not influenced by a certain inclusion or exclusion criteria or randomization practices given by a protocol but rather by the observation of outcomes as they happen in the clinical routine given by a determined standard of care.
Your question: "Formally, to find statistical associations between events in a retrospective or prospective way has the same significance?"
If the explanatory variables/risk factors are the same and the quality of information on values of those variables is the same, then yes.
Retrospective designs do not allow for fine tuning and tailoring the quality of information desired to the specific study; you are stuck with the available data as it is. Prospective designs can (theoretically) incorporate all knowledge up to the point the study begins, and this may lead to a better study than is possible retrospectively.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher