Discussions praising the efficiency of randomized trials are widespread, however, few of these discussions take a close look at some of the common assumptions that individuals hold regarding randomized trials. And unfortunately, these common assumptions may be based on outdated evidence and simplistic ideas.
The Bradford Hill Criteria are commonly used as a checklist to argue for causality when randomized trials aren’t possible. However, the originator of these viewpoints never intended for them to be used this way. In this post, I examine the shortcomings of using these viewpoints as a checklist in the real world.