Literature DB >> 20473202

Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right.

Harold C Sox1.   

Abstract

Defining comparative effectiveness research (CER) was the first order of business for the Institute of Medicine Committee on Initial Priorities for CER. The Institute of Medicine committee approached the task of defining CER by identifying the common theme in the 6 extant definitions. The definition follows: "Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels." The key words in this definition are "generation and synthesis of evidence" (which implies both original research and systematic reviews), "alternative methods" (which implies making head to head comparisons in study populations typical of daily practice), and "to make informed decisions" (which implies a focus on data that helps to decide between alternatives). Defining CER requires us to decide what we want from decisions about health care. Definitions also serve a bureaucratic function: they can set boundaries that delineate which research is eligible for CER program funding. Definitions--and the funding that advances their goals--can reshape the research environment.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20473202     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181da3709

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  26 in total

1.  How comparative effectiveness research can help advance 'personalized medicine' in cancer treatment.

Authors:  Scott D Ramsey; David Veenstra; Sean R Tunis; Louis Garrison; John J Crowley; Laurence H Baker
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Consensus treatments for moderate juvenile dermatomyositis: beyond the first two months. Results of the second Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance consensus conference.

Authors:  Adam M Huber; Angela B Robinson; Ann M Reed; Leslie Abramson; Sharon Bout-Tabaku; Ruy Carrasco; Megan Curran; Brian M Feldman; Harry Gewanter; Thomas Griffin; Kathleen Haines; Mark F Hoeltzel; Josephine Isgro; Philip Kahn; Bianca Lang; Patti Lawler; Bracha Shaham; Heinrike Schmeling; Rosie Scuccimarri; Michael Shishov; Elizabeth Stringer; Julie Wohrley; Norman T Ilowite; Carol Wallace
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.794

3.  Behavioral medicine and the health of our nation: accelerating our impact.

Authors:  Karen Emmons
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2012-04

4.  Comparative effectiveness research: improving patient care or drug rationing?

Authors:  Roger Chou
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2011-03-05       Impact factor: 9.546

5.  Comparator bias: why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties.

Authors:  Howard Mann; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 6.  Timing to perform VATS for traumatic-retained hemothorax (a systematic review and meta-analysis).

Authors:  Behrad Ziapour; Elmira Mostafidi; Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani; Ali Kabir; Ikenna Okereke
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.693

7.  Assessing the impact of a cooperative group trial on breast cancer care in the medicare population.

Authors:  Pamela R Soulos; James B Yu; Kenneth B Roberts; Ann C Raldow; Jeph Herrin; Jessica B Long; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  A comparison of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Maarten J Ijzerman; Janine A van Til; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.744

10.  Measurement in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Carolyn M Rutter; Aruna Kamineni; Eric A Johnson; Natasha K Stout; Noel S Weiss; V Paul Doria-Rose; Chyke A Doubeni; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 5.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.