Literature DB >> 20683886

The promise and realities of comparative effectiveness research.

Constantine Gatsonis1.   

Abstract

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) has been given a broad and ambitious mandate. Will it be able to deliver the multifaceted and granular comparative information that it has been tasked with developing? After a discussion of the general conditions for the feasibility of CER, we focus our attention on one of the most challenging areas: the evaluation of diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20683886      PMCID： PMC3544942          DOI： 10.1002/sim.3936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN： 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  4 in total

1.  Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient.

Authors:  P M Bossuyt; J G Lijmer; B W Mol
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-11-25       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Design of evaluations of imaging technologies: development of a paradigm.

Authors:  C Gatsonis
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Dawei Liu; Anthony F Shields; Ilana F Gareen; Lucy Hanna; Sharon Hartson Stine; R Edward Coleman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-03-24       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391
  4 in total
  7 in total

1.  A flexible, multifaceted approach is needed in health technology assessment of PET.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 2.  Computer disease simulation models: integrating evidence for health policy.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Amy B Knudsen; Pari V Pandharipande
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  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

Review 4.  Diagnostic accuracy of PET for recurrent glioma diagnosis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  T Nihashi; I J Dahabreh; T Terasawa
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 5.  Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Katrina A B Goddard; William A Knaus; Evelyn Whitlock; Gary H Lyman; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Sheri D Schully; Scott Ramsey; Sean Tunis; Andrew N Freedman; Muin J Khoury; David L Veenstra
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 6.  Comparing the Effectiveness of Methods to Measure Oxygen in Tissues for Prognosis and Treatment of Cancer.

Authors:  Ann Barry Flood; Victoria A Satinsky; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

7.  The Coriell personalized medicine collaborative pharmacogenomics appraisal, evidence scoring and interpretation system.

Authors:  Neda Gharani; Margaret A Keller; Catharine B Stack; Laura M Hodges; Tara J Schmidlen; Daniel E Lynch; Erynn S Gordon; Michael F Christman
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 11.117
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.