No self-evident interpretation of a randomized study

TY - JOUR

T1 - No self-evident interpretation of a randomized study

AU - Holmberg, Lars

PY - 2022/1/8

Y1 - 2022/1/8

N2 - In this issue of the journal, Schmidt-Andersen et al. address a relevant problem: how does prospective and retrospective data collection of postoperative complications compare [1]? The paper raises several interesting themes, some of which will be discussed here: Was randomization the best option for a study of this problem? Is this a study ‘only’ of prospective versus retrospective data collection? Should we focus on the statistical significance or on quantitative estimates?

AB - In this issue of the journal, Schmidt-Andersen et al. address a relevant problem: how does prospective and retrospective data collection of postoperative complications compare [1]? The paper raises several interesting themes, some of which will be discussed here: Was randomization the best option for a study of this problem? Is this a study ‘only’ of prospective versus retrospective data collection? Should we focus on the statistical significance or on quantitative estimates?

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122670172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/21681805.2021.2019305

DO - 10.1080/21681805.2021.2019305

M3 - Editorial

AN - SCOPUS:85122670172

SN - 2168-1805

VL - 56

SP - 12

EP - 13

JO - Scandinavian Journal of Urology

JF - Scandinavian Journal of Urology

IS - 1

ER -