Literature DB >> 25066850

Comparative effectiveness research in hand surgery.

Shepard P Johnson1, Kevin C Chung2.   

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a concept initiated by the Institute of Medicine and financially supported by the federal government. The primary objective of CER is to improve decision making in medicine. This research is intended to evaluate the effectiveness, benefits, and harmful effects of alternative interventions. CER studies are commonly large, simple, observational, and conducted using electronic databases. To date, there is little comparative effectiveness evidence within hand surgery to guide therapeutic decisions. To draw conclusions on effectiveness through electronic health records, databases must contain clinical information and outcomes relevant to hand surgery interventions, such as patient-related outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative effectiveness research; Hand surgery; Large databases; Patient-reported outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25066850      PMCID: PMC4258902          DOI: 10.1016/j.hcl.2014.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hand Clin        ISSN: 0749-0712            Impact factor:   1.907


  31 in total

1.  The comparative effectiveness of surgeons over interventionalists in endovascular repairs of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Authors:  Brandon A McCutcheon; Mark A Talamini; David C Chang; John A Rose; Dennis F Bandyk; Samuel E Wilson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 12.969

2.  Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and physical measurements in outcome studies of distal radius fracture treatment.

Authors:  Sandra V Kotsis; Frank H Lau; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.230

3.  Comparative effectiveness research - what is it and how does one do it?

Authors:  Christopher H Goss; Nathan Tefft
Journal:  Paediatr Respir Rev       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.726

4.  Confounding adjustment in comparative effectiveness research conducted within distributed research networks.

Authors:  Sengwee Toh; Joshua J Gagne; Jeremy A Rassen; Bruce H Fireman; Martin Kulldorff; Jeffrey S Brown
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Lessons from the Electronic Data Methods Forum: collaboration at the frontier of comparative effectiveness research, patient-centered outcomes research, and quality improvement.

Authors:  Erin Holve; Ned Calonge
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Comparative effectiveness of nonbiologic versus biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Esi Morgan Dewitt; Yanhong Li; Jeffrey R Curtis; Henry A Glick; Jeffrey D Greenberg; Kevin J Anstrom; Joel M Kremer; George Reed; Kevin A Schulman; Shelby D Reed
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 4.666

7.  Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire.

Authors:  K C Chung; M S Pillsbury; M R Walters; R A Hayward
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 2.230

8.  Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Roxanne E Jensen; Jodi B Segal; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.

Authors:  Sara Ahmed; Richard A Berzon; Dennis A Revicki; William R Lenderking; Carol M Moinpour; Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Comparative safety and effectiveness of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: retrospective population based cohort study.

Authors:  D T Eurich; S Simpson; A Senthilselvan; C V Asche; J K Sandhu-Minhas; F A McAlister
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-04-25
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Outcomes Assessment After Hand Burns.

Authors:  Shepard P Johnson; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Hand Clin       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 1.907

2.  CUPID: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial to identify characteristics of similar Chinese patent medicines.

Authors:  Hongbo Cao; Jingbo Zhai; Nan Li; Hongxia Cao; Xiang Lei; Wei Mu; Zhi Liu; Hui Wang; Hongcai Shang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Practice of Comparative Effectiveness Research to Identify Treatment Characteristics of Similar Chinese Patent Medicine for Angina Pectoris.

Authors:  Hongbo Cao; Ping Wang; Nan Li; Dan Liu; Junshao Ma; Ruihong Fan; Zhihuan Zhou
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2017-08-13       Impact factor: 2.629

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.