Study endgame first before studying opening? Is it true? While looking for and comparing suggestions that will help me to improve in chess, I have noticed that some people and some chess book authors suggest that you should study the endgame first.

Some people say that by studying endgame first, you will find out the correct middlegame plan to achieve the endgame that will be on your favor.

Is it effective? Could someone please confirm that he became a stronger player by using that method of studying?
I'm only a 1600 so take my advice at face value

I hear a lot of people saying all the time not to waste their time on openings, just focus on tactics and endgame. That advice is nice and everything but if you never make it out of the opening the endgame is worthless. I had a game in a tournament where I fell for Lasker's trap in the Albin-Counter Gambit. If I had spent just 5 minutes studying that line I could have avoided that and survived to use the lessons I have studied in the endgame. 

I guess what I am trying to say is that instead of thinking of it as "should I do one or the other" you are going to have to do both. If you want to get good you can't avoid any one area you are going to have to give them all attention. Studying openings leads to a strong positional understanding and leads to understandings in similar openings. For instance understanding the sveshnikov sicilian  helps with understanding the themes in the kalashnikov. 

Study a lot of tactics because every 2000+ I have heard has said tactics are what you need to know. Hope this helps