Although a randomized controlled trial (RCT) provides the strongest level of evidence when properly conducted, it is by no means the only research design capable of supporting causal claims. As discussed in Gugiu and Gugiu, numerous non-RCTs are able to produce valid and reliable results, providing they can establish approximately equivalent treatment groups at baseline. The purpose of this article is to respond to the issues raised by Berger and Knoll.
Berger, V.W., & Knoll, D. ( 2011). Levels of evidence: Further insight on Gugiu and Gugiu . Evaluation & the Health Professions, 34, 124-126.
2.
Brennan, R.L. ( 2001). Statistics for social science and public policy. New York, NY: Springer.
3.
Gugiu, P.C., & Gugiu, M.R. ( 2010). A critical appraisal of standard guidelines for grading levels of evidence. Evaluation & the Health Professions , 33, 233-255.
4.
Public Health Service. (1964). Smoking and health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, DC: Author.
5.
Skaff, P.J., & Sloan, J.A. ( 1998). Design and analysis of equivalence clinical trials via the SAS system. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual SAS Users Group International Conference (23, pp. 1166-1171). Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
6.
Smith, G.C., & Pell, J.P. ( 2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials . British Medical Journal, 327, 1459-1461.
