Literature DB >> 21184862

Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research.

John Concato1, Elizabeth V Lawler, Robert A Lew, J Michael Gaziano, Mihaela Aslan, Grant D Huang.   

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) may be defined informally as an assessment of available options for treating specific medical conditions in selected groups of patients. In this context, the most prominent features of CER are the various patient populations, medical ailments, and treatment options involved in any particular project. Yet, each research investigation also has a corresponding study design or "architecture," and in patient-oriented research a common distinction used to describe such designs are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus observational studies. The purposes of this overview, with regard to CER, are to (1) understand how observational studies can provide accurate results, comparable to RCTs; (2) recognize strategies used in selected newer methods for conducting observational studies; (3) review selected observational studies from the Veterans Health Administration; and (4) appreciate the importance of fundamental methodological principles when conducting or evaluating individual studies. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21184862     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  33 in total

Review 1.  Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Issa J Dahabreh; Radley C Sheldrick; Jessica K Paulus; Mei Chung; Vasileia Varvarigou; Haseeb Jafri; Jeremy A Rassen; Thomas A Trikalinos; Georgios D Kitsios
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-06-17       Impact factor: 29.983

2.  Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale: a near-perfect treatment ruined by careful study?

Authors:  David M Kent; Georgios D Kitsios
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2012-05

Review 3.  Evolution of advanced technologies in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Point-of-Care Clinical Trials in Sports Medicine Research: Identifying Effective Treatment Interventions Through Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Authors:  Kenneth C Lam; Cailee E Welch Bacon; Eric L Sauers; R Curtis Bay
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Frequency and Impact of Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Surgery for End-Stage Ankle Arthritis.

Authors:  Daniel C Norvell; Jane B Shofer; Sigvard T Hansen; James Davitt; John G Anderson; Donald Bohay; J Chris Coetzee; John Maskill; Michael Brage; Michael Houghton; William R Ledoux; Bruce J Sangeorzan
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.827

6.  Enhancing Clinical Content and Race/Ethnicity Data in Statewide Hospital Administrative Databases: Obstacles Encountered, Strategies Adopted, and Lessons Learned.

Authors:  Michael Pine; Niranjana M Kowlessar; Jason L Salemi; Jill Miyamura; David S Zingmond; Nicole E Katz; Joe Schindler
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 7.  Methods in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Potential bias in medication adherence studies of prevalent users.

Authors:  Matthew L Maciejewski; Chris L Bryson; Virginia Wang; Mark Perkins; Chuan-Fen Liu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Clinical research informatics and electronic health record data.

Authors:  R L Richesson; M M Horvath; S A Rusincovitch
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2014-08-15

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.