We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Viewpoint |

Can the Learning Health Care System Be Educated With Observational Data?

Issa J. Dahabreh, MD, MS1,2; David M. Kent, MD, MS3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
2Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
3Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA. 2014;312(2):129-130. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.4364.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Given the complexity of medical decision making and the myriad questions that arise during the care of individuals, an expectation that every causal question be addressed with a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is not realistic. Nevertheless, large administrative databases linked with electronic health records, coupled with new statistical methods for extracting causal information from raw data, can complement clinical trial evidence, enabling a “learning health care system.” Yet despite continued advances in epidemiological and statistical methods and the advent of “big data,”1 there is concern that inferences from observational data can lead to poor health care decisions by misrepresenting association for causation.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Comparison of Propensity Score Analyses and RCT Results From 3 Recent Empirical Assessments35

Scatter plots of results from empirical comparisons of propensity score analyses (y-axis) and corresponding randomized clinical trial (RCT) results (x-axis). Markers denote comparisons between observational and randomized study estimates for the same research question (similar populations, interventions, and outcomes); statistically significant differences (P < .05) are shown in orange. The dotted lines indicate lack of effect in RCTs (vertical lines) and observational studies (horizontal lines). Values lower than 1 indicate that the new treatment evaluated in the trial was more effective than the more established treatment; observational study results are expressed in the same way as the corresponding trial results. Markers in the top-right and bottom-left quadrants in each panel indicate agreement between randomized and observational results with respect to the direction of effects. Markers in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants indicate discordant direction of effects between designs. Black dashed diagonal lines indicate the line of identity (perfect agreement) between RCT and observational study results; gray dashed lines demarcate observational study relative risks that are between 0.67 and 1.5 times those produced by the corresponding RCT results. The term “relative risk” is used to denote risk, odds, or hazard ratio estimates, as reported in the 3 empirical analyses contributing data to this figure.

Graphic Jump Location



Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

15 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles