Literature DB >> 22517505

Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research: past, present, and future potential.

Anne-Marie Meyer1, William R Carpenter, Amy P Abernethy, Til Stürmer, Michael R Kosorok.   

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can efficiently and rapidly generate new scientific evidence and address knowledge gaps, reduce clinical uncertainty, and guide health care choices. Much of the potential in CER is driven by the application of novel methods to analyze existing data. Despite its potential, several challenges must be identified and overcome so that CER may be improved, accelerated, and expeditiously implemented into the broad spectrum of cancer care and clinical practice. To identify and characterize the challenges to cancer CER, the authors reviewed the literature and conducted semistructured interviews with 41 cancer CER researchers at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Cancer CER Consortium. Several data sets for cancer CER were identified and differentiated into an ontology of 8 categories and were characterized in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and utility. Several themes emerged during the development of this ontology and discussions with CER researchers. Dominant among them was accelerating cancer CER and promoting the acceptance of findings, which will necessitate transcending disciplinary silos to incorporate diverse perspectives and expertise. Multidisciplinary collaboration is required, including those with expertise in nonexperimental data, statistics, outcomes research, clinical trials, epidemiology, generalist and specialty medicine, survivorship, informatics, data, and methods, among others. Recommendations highlight the systematic, collaborative identification of critical measures; application of more rigorous study design and sampling methods; policy-level resolution of issues in data ownership, governance, access, and cost; and development and application of consistent standards for data security, privacy, and confidentiality.
Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22517505      PMCID: PMC3431434          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27552

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  46 in total

Review 1.  Administrative record linkage as a tool for public health research.

Authors:  Douglas P Jutte; Leslie L Roos; Marni D Brownell
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 21.981

Review 2.  Reshaping cancer learning through the use of health information technology.

Authors:  Paul J Wallace
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: evaluating and enhancing the payoff to decision making.

Authors:  Steven B Clauser; Patricia A Ganz; Joseph Lipscomb; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-10       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Robert J Glynn; Kenneth J Rothman; Jerry Avorn; Sebastian Schneeweiss
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments.

Authors:  Neil J Dorans
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-08       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Commentary: a progress report on AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program.

Authors:  Carolyn M Clancy; Jean R Slutsky
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): a review of system assessment instrument for cancer patients.

Authors:  Amy P Abernethy; Syed Yousuf Zafar; Hope Uronis; Jane L Wheeler; April Coan; Krista Rowe; Rebecca A Shelby; Robin Fowler; James E Herndon
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  A framework for understanding cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.

Authors:  William R Carpenter; Anne-Marie Meyer; Amy P Abernethy; Til Stürmer; Michael R Kosorok
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 9.  Nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research using linked healthcare databases.

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Michele Jonsson Funk; Charles Poole; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 10.  Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives.

Authors:  Joseph Lipscomb; Carolyn C Gotay; Claire F Snyder
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 508.702

View more
  8 in total

1.  Big data for population-based cancer research: the integrated cancer information and surveillance system.

Authors:  Anne-Marie Meyer; Andrew F Olshan; Laura Green; Adrian Meyer; Stephanie B Wheeler; Ethan Basch; William R Carpenter
Journal:  N C Med J       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug

2.  A framework for understanding cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.

Authors:  William R Carpenter; Anne-Marie Meyer; Amy P Abernethy; Til Stürmer; Michael R Kosorok
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Comparative Effectiveness of Oxaliplatin Versus 5-flourouricil in Older Adults: An Instrumental Variable Analysis.

Authors:  Christina DeFilippo Mack; M Alan Brookhart; Robert J Glynn; Anne Marie Meyer; William R Carpenter; Robert S Sandler; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.822

4.  Quality-of-life assessment after palliative interventions to manage malignant ureteral obstruction.

Authors:  Wayne Laurence Monsky; Chris Molloy; Bedro Jin; Timothy Nolan; Dayantha Fernando; Shaun Loh; Chin-Shang Li
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 2.740

5.  Real-time autOmatically updated data warehOuse in healThcare (ROOT): an innovative and automated data collection system.

Authors:  Hyun Ae Jung; Oksoon Jeong; Dong Kyung Chang; Sehhoon Park; Jong-Mu Sun; Se-Hoon Lee; Jin Seok Ahn; Myung-Ju Ahn; Keunchil Park
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2021-10

6.  Validation of a registry-derived risk algorithm based on treatment protocol as a proxy for disease risk in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Authors:  Sumit Gupta; Jason D Pole; Astrid Guttmann; Lillian Sung
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  A validation of clinical data captured from a novel Cancer Care Quality Program directly integrated with administrative claims data.

Authors:  David M Kern; John J Barron; Bingcao Wu; Alex Ganetsky; Vincent J Willey; Ralph A Quimbo; Michael J Fisch; Joseph Singer; Ann Nguyen; Ronac Mamtani
Journal:  Pragmat Obs Res       Date:  2017-08-26

8.  Monitoring public health reporting: data tracking in cancer registries.

Authors:  Abdulrahman M Jabour; Brian E Dixon
Journal:  Online J Public Health Inform       Date:  2018-12-30
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.