Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Mar 31:11:34.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-34.

What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection

Reidar K Lie  1 , Franklin G Miller
Affiliations

What counts as reliable evidence for public health policy: the case of circumcision for preventing HIV infection

Reidar K Lie et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: There is an ongoing controversy over the relative merits of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized observational studies in assessing efficacy and guiding policy. In this paper we examine male circumcision to prevent HIV infection as a case study that can illuminate the appropriate role of different types of evidence for public health interventions.

Discussion: Based on an analysis of two Cochrane reviews, one published in 2003 before the results of three RCTs, and one in 2009, we argue that if we rely solely on evidence from RCTs and exclude evidence from well-designed non-randomized studies, we limit our ability to provide sound public health recommendations. Furthermore, the bias in favor of RCT evidence has delayed research on policy relevant issues.

Summary: This case study of circumcision and HIV prevention demonstrates that if we rely solely on evidence from RCTs and exclude evidence from well-designed non-randomized studies, we limit our ability to provide sound public health recommendations.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2007;334(7589):349–351. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed) 1998;317(7167):1185–1190. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. American journal of epidemiology. 2007;166(10):1203–1209. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm189. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kunz R. Randomized trials and observational studies: still mostly similar results, still crucial differences. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2008;61(3):207–208. - PubMed
    1. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;342(25):1878–1886. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006223422506. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types