Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were originally designed for testing drug treatments. While this has become a gold standard model for research in general, it is not necessarily a one-size-fits all design for any medically relevant treatment. This type of simplistic thinking does seem to be endemic to the conventional system and can even be seen in conventional treatment plans, i.e. treating many presentations of headache with the same methods.
Just like Chinese Medical practitioners choose different treatment plans (designs) based on more subtle and individualistic patterns, research scientists could better broaden range of evidence beyond conventional interventions by also adopting various models of evaluation that could be selected based on the intervention being investigated.
For this to happen, a paradigm shift would need to occur in conventional thinking. There is a hierarchical framework that gets applied to many things and creates judgments of something as superior or inferior. Currently, RCTs are seen as the superior form of research but if it could be seen as part of a system of designs that coexist together and each correlate to different applications in research, perhaps some equanimity with other forms of evidence could be achieved. Case studies and qualitative evidence would be among this list. Instead of being deemed inferior and cast aside, different research methods could be applied to new studies with a more individualized approach. This may even create more effective methods for obtaining accurate evidence.