Literature DB >> 27423511

Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.

Haresh Kirpalani1, William E Truog2, Carl T D'Angio3, Michael Cotten4.   

Abstract

The purpose of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information about which currently available interventions and practices are most effective for patients. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the hallmark of scientific proof, and have been used to compare interventions used in variable ways by different clinicians (comparative effectiveness RCTs, CER-RCTs). But such CER-RCTs have at times generated controversy. Usually the background for the CER-RCT is a range of "standard therapy" or "standard of care." This may have been adopted on observational data alone, or pilot data. At times, such prior data may derive from populations that differ from the population in which the widely variable standard approach is being applied. We believe that controversies related to these CER-RCTs result from confusing "accepted" therapies and "rigorously evaluated therapies." We first define evidence-based medicine and consider how well neonatology conforms to that definition. We then contrast the approach of testing new therapies and those already existing and widely adopted, as in CER-RCTs. We next examine a central challenge in incorporating the control arm within CER-RCTs and aspects of the "titrated" trial. We finally briefly consider some ethical issues that have arisen, and discuss the wide range of neonatology practices that could be tested by CER-RCTs or alternative CER-based strategies that might inform practice. Throughout, we emphasize the lack of awareness of the lay community, and indeed many researchers or commentators, in appreciating the wide variation of standard of care. There is a corresponding need to identify the best uses of available resources that will lead to the best outcomes for our patients. We conclude that CER-RCTs are an essential methodology in modern neonatology to address many unanswered questions and test unproven therapies in newborn care.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparative Effectiveness; Evidence Based; Neonatology; Randomised controlled trials; Research; Standard of care

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27423511      PMCID: PMC5222533          DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2016.05.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Perinatol        ISSN: 0146-0005            Impact factor:   3.300


  62 in total

Review 1.  The ethical relevance of the standard of care in the design of clinical trials.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Henry J Silverman
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2003-12-30       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Comparative effectiveness research: challenges for medical journals.

Authors:  Harold C Sox; Mark Helfand; Jeremy Grimshaw; Kay Dickersin; David Tovey; J André Knottnerus; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 3.  The ethics of neonatal research: A trialists' perspective.

Authors:  Sara B DeMauro; Elizabeth E Foglia; Barbara Schmidt
Journal:  Semin Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Stakeholder-Driven Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Update From PCORI.

Authors:  Joseph V Selby; Laura Forsythe; Harold C Sox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Informed Consent for Research: A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Views of Parents of Sick Newborns.

Authors:  Ana Tablante Nunes; Christine F Trahms; Carl T D'Angio
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec

6.  Trials: the next 50 years. Large scale randomised evidence of moderate benefits.

Authors:  R Peto; C Baigent
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

Review 7.  International survey of transfusion practices for extremely premature infants.

Authors:  Ursula Guillén; James J Cummings; Edward F Bell; Shigerharu Hosono; Axel R Frantz; Rolf F Maier; Robin K Whyte; Elaine Boyle; Max Vento; John A Widness; Haresh Kirpalani
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.300

8.  Long-term outcome of brain structure in premature infants: effects of liberal vs restricted red blood cell transfusions.

Authors:  Peg C Nopoulos; Amy L Conrad; Edward F Bell; Ronald G Strauss; John A Widness; Vincent A Magnotta; M Bridget Zimmerman; Michael K Georgieff; Scott D Lindgren; Lynn C Richman
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2011-01-03

9.  Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Authors:  Rebekah E McWhirter; Christine R Critchley; Dianne Nicol; Don Chalmers; Tess Whitton; Margaret Otlowski; Michael M Burgess; Joanne L Dickinson
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2014-11-20

Review 10.  Non-invasive versus invasive respiratory support in preterm infants at birth: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Georg M Schmölzer; Manoj Kumar; Gerhard Pichler; Khalid Aziz; Megan O'Reilly; Po-Yin Cheung
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-10-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.