Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados vs. Estudos Observacionais
qual é o melhor para a sua pergunta de pesquisa?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47456/rbps.v27i1.49989Keywords:
Randomized clinical trials, Observational studies, Clinical research, Study design, Evidence-based medicineAbstract
The choice of the most appropriate study design in clinical research should not be reduced to a rigid hierarchy of evidence. While Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard, their superiority over observational studies depends on the research question, ethical considerations, feasibility, and clinical context. Well-designed observational studies can yield results consistent with RCTs and are especially valuable for investigating prognosis, incidence, prevalence, and long-term safety in real-world practice. Conversely, RCTs provide strong internal validity but may lack external applicability due to strict eligibility criteria. In several fields — such as rehabilitation, palliative care, mental health, and rare diseases — RCTs face practical and ethical limitations, reinforcing the role of observational research. Ultimately, the reliability of evidence depends less on the study label than on methodological rigor, validity, and applicability. Rather than debating superiority, RCTs and observational studies should be seen as complementary approaches that, together, strengthen clinical decision-making.
Downloads
References
Arêas, F. Z. S. (2025). Key points in constructing a scientific research question. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Saúde, 27(1), e47635. https://doi.org/10.47456/rbps.v27i1.47635.
Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1887-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006223422507.
Ross, J. S. (2014). Randomized clinical trials and observational studies are more often alike than unlike. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(10), 1557. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3366
Sacks HS. Observational studies and randomized trials. N Engl J Med. 2000 Oct 19;343(16):1195; author reply 1196-7. PMID: 110417
Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist GE, Timmer A, Kunz R, Akl EA, Schünemann H, Briel M, Nordmann AJ, Pregno S, Oxman AD. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Apr 13;2011(4):MR000012. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub3.
Mankia K, Siddle H, Di Matteo A, Alpízar-Rodríguez D, Kerry J, Kerschbaumer A, Aletaha D, Emery P. A core set of risk factors in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR points to consider for conducting clinical trials and observational studies in individuals at risk of rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open. 2021 Sep;7(3):e001768. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001768.
Lai H, Ge L, Sun M, Pan B, Huang J, Hou L, Yang Q, Liu J, Liu J, Ye Z, Xia D, Zhao W, Wang X, Liu M, Talukdar JR, Tian J, Yang K, Estill J. Assessing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials With Large Language Models. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 May 1;7(5):e2412687. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.12687.
Altmann J. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour. 1974;49(3):227-67. doi: 10.1163/156853974x00534.
Tankersley M, McGoey KE, Dalton D, Rumrill PD Jr, Balan CM. Single subject research methods in rehabilitation. Work. 2006;26(1):85-92.
Trentino K, Farmer S, Gross I, Shander A, Isbister J. Observational studies - should we simply ignore them in assessing transfusion outcomes? BMC Anesthesiol. 2016 Oct 14;16(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12871-016-0264-4.
Chlebowski, R. T., et al. (2010). Bisphosphonate use and breast cancer risk in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(22), 3582-3590. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.7211
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Brazilian Journal of Health Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Saúde (RBPS) adopts the CC BY 4.0 license, which means that authors retain the copyright of the works they submit to the journal. Authors are responsible for declaring that their contribution is an original manuscript, that it has not been previously published, and that it is not under simultaneous review by another scientific journal. Upon submitting the manuscript, authors grant RBPS the exclusive right of first publication, subject to peer review.
Authors are permitted to enter into additional contracts for the non-exclusive distribution of the version published by RBPS (for example, in institutional repositories or as a book chapter), provided that due acknowledgment of authorship and of initial publication by RBPS is given. Authors are also encouraged to make their work available online (for example, in institutional repositories or on their personal pages) after its initial publication in the journal, with due acknowledgment of authorship and of the original publication by RBPS.
Accordingly, under the CC BY 4.0 license, readers have the right to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially;
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
