UCSF

Background: Numerous authors have used the 'parachute' analogy to comment on the importance of and need for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in the hierarchy of medical evidence. Methods: The authors completed a retrospective literature analysis examining publications citing the 2003 parachute paper by Smith and Pell and a 2018 RCT of a parachute by Yeh et al. For all of the articles that directly analogized a medical intervention to a parachute, the authors identified the desired outcome of the practice and searched PubMed for relevant RCTs. Results: Authors citing the parachute analogy are often critical of RCTs and often draw comparisons to interventions that are not parachutes.