CONTEXT: The terms evidence-based medicine (EBM), health technology assessment (HTA), comparative effectiveness research (CER), and other related terms lack clarity and so could lead to miscommunication, confusion, and poor decision making. The objective of this article is to clarify their definitions and the relationships among key terms and concepts. METHODS: This article used the relevant methods and policy literature as well as the websites of organizations engaged in evidence-based activities to develop a framework to explain the relationships among the terms EBM, HTA, and CER. FINDINGS: This article proposes an organizing framework and presents a graphic demonstrating the differences and relationships among these terms and concepts. CONCLUSIONS: More specific terminology and concepts are necessary for an informed and clear public policy debate. They are even more important to inform decision making at all levels and to engender more accountability by the organizations and individuals responsible for these decisions.
CONTEXT: The terms evidence-based medicine (EBM), health technology assessment (HTA), comparative effectiveness research (CER), and other related terms lack clarity and so could lead to miscommunication, confusion, and poor decision making. The objective of this article is to clarify their definitions and the relationships among key terms and concepts. METHODS: This article used the relevant methods and policy literature as well as the websites of organizations engaged in evidence-based activities to develop a framework to explain the relationships among the terms EBM, HTA, and CER. FINDINGS: This article proposes an organizing framework and presents a graphic demonstrating the differences and relationships among these terms and concepts. CONCLUSIONS: More specific terminology and concepts are necessary for an informed and clear public policy debate. They are even more important to inform decision making at all levels and to engender more accountability by the organizations and individuals responsible for these decisions.
Authors: Leslie Levin; Ron Goeree; Nancy Sikich; Birthe Jorgensen; Melissa C Brouwers; Tony Easty; Catherine Zahn Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Hans-Georg Eichler; Eric Abadie; Alasdair Breckenridge; Bruno Flamion; Lars L Gustafsson; Hubert Leufkens; Malcolm Rowland; Christian K Schneider; Brigitte Bloechl-Daum Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: Adam Wanner; Stephen C Groft; J Russell Teagarden; Jeffrey Krischer; Barry R Davis; Christopher S Coffey; David H Hickam; Jeffrey Teckman; David R Nelson; Michael L McCaleb; Rohit Loomba; Charlie Strange; Robert A Sandhaus; Mark Brantly; Jonathan M Edelman; Albert Farrugia Journal: Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis Date: 2015-04-28
Authors: Mei Lu; Dennis R Ownby; Edward Zoratti; Douglas Roblin; Dayna Johnson; Christine Cole Johnson; Christine L M Joseph Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Polina V Kukhareva; Charlene Weir; Guilherme Del Fiol; Gregory A Aarons; Teresa Y Taft; Chelsey R Schlechter; Thomas J Reese; Rebecca L Curran; Claude Nanjo; Damian Borbolla; Catherine J Staes; Keaton L Morgan; Heidi S Kramer; Carole H Stipelman; Julie H Shakib; Michael C Flynn; Kensaku Kawamoto Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Lalla Aïda Guindo; Monika Wagner; Rob Baltussen; Donna Rindress; Janine van Til; Paul Kind; Mireille M Goetghebeur Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2012-07-18
Authors: Steven D Imrisek; Matthew Lee; Dan Goldner; Harpreet Nagra; Lindsey M Lavaysse; Jamillah Hoy-Rosas; Jeff Dachis; Lindsay E Sears Journal: JMIR Diabetes Date: 2022-05-03