RCTs are high quality, because they are done in a controlled setting, testing against a control group, testing the null hypothesis. RCTs are able to show causality. The problem with RCTs is that they are very expensive, since it involves keeping people in a clinic, so usually RCTs are short term and can only afford to look at surrogate markers.
However most often than not, surrogate markers are enough. Also RCTs tend to coroborate the findings from observational studies in about 70% of the cases. Also for really hot topics, like diabetes management, we do have year-long RCTs too.
And drawing conclusions from systematic reviews and meta analyses of RCTs, well, that's basically the best we can do.
However most often than not, surrogate markers are enough. Also RCTs tend to coroborate the findings from observational studies in about 70% of the cases. Also for really hot topics, like diabetes management, we do have year-long RCTs too.
And drawing conclusions from systematic reviews and meta analyses of RCTs, well, that's basically the best we can do.
For assessing the strength of available evidence, I recommend reading the following: https://examine.news/how-to-read-a-study