Cohort studies, since they follow people over time, are an ideal way to show causality, though Randomized Controlled Trials will have even less bias and can provide stronger eviden... Cohort studies, since they follow people over time, are an ideal way to show causality, though Randomized Controlled Trials will have even less bias and can provide stronger evidence of causality.
Understand the Problem
The question discusses the effectiveness of cohort studies in establishing causality compared to Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). It highlights that while cohort studies can show causality due to their longitudinal nature, RCTs are less biased and provide stronger evidence of causality.
Answer
Cohort studies are ideal for showing causality, but RCTs provide stronger evidence due to less bias.
Cohort studies, since they follow people over time, are an ideal way to show causality, though Randomized Controlled Trials will have even less bias and can provide stronger evidence of causality.
Answer for screen readers
Cohort studies, since they follow people over time, are an ideal way to show causality, though Randomized Controlled Trials will have even less bias and can provide stronger evidence of causality.
More Information
Cohort studies allow researchers to observe subjects over long periods to assess the impact of specific exposures on outcomes, making them useful for understanding causality. However, Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are less prone to bias due to their design, often leading to stronger causal evidence.
Tips
A common mistake is assuming correlation implies causation; cohort studies can infer but not prove causality without further evidence.
Sources
- Observational Studies: Cohort and Case-Control Studies - PMC - NCBI - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Cohort Study - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics - sciencedirect.com
- Cohort Studies: Prospective versus Retrospective - Karger Publishers - karger.com
