make this in simple wording, Your peer makes a solid point about the strengths of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in establishing causal relationships and controlling for confounding variables. RCTs are indeed considered the gold standard in clinical research because they randomize participants to different groups, thus minimizing bias and allowing for clearer conclusions about causality (Hariton & Locascio, 2018). However, it's important to recognize the context in which Arshad et al. (2020) conducted their study. Observational studies have their own value, particularly in real-world settings where RCTs might not be feasible due to ethical or practical reasons. For instance, observational studies can be beneficial in examining treatment effects in diverse populations and over longer periods which might be impractical in RCTs (Concato et al., 2000). While it is true that observational studies can only identify associations rather than causation, they can still provide valuable insights, especially when well-designed with techniques like propensity score matching to control for confounding variables. It's also worth mentioning that observational studies can offer evidence that complements findings from RCTs, forming a comprehensive picture of an intervention's effects in varied settings (Benson & Hartz, 2000)