Literature DB >> 9731918

Randomized database studies: a new method to assess drugs' effectiveness?

J A Sacristán1, J Soto, I Galende, T R Hylan.   

Abstract

The need to evaluate drugs' effects in real clinical practice is increasingly important. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and database analyses (DBA) are the two main methods to assess treatments effectiveness. RCTs remain the "gold standard" for comparing alternative treatments. However, they are conducted under strict, protocol-driven conditions that may limit their generalizability. Advantages of new high quality clinical databases, on the other hand, include the simple and economic access to large number and range of cases, and the ability to capture all aspects of actual medical practice. The main potential limitation of DBA is the potential for comparison bias due to the lack of randomization. Despite the efforts to design naturalistic trials and to use sophisticated statistical techniques to minimize selection bias, the inherent limitations of both methods (problems of external and internal validity, respectively) have not been completely solved. Thus, the actual challenge is the development of some new strategy capable of generating results with an acceptable balance between internal and external validity. As randomization is essential to minimize comparison bias, we point out the possibility to include randomization modules in computer-based patient records. The theoretical foundation of these "randomized database studies" is the simultaneous use of both experimental and observational methods in the assessment of drugs' effectiveness. The progressive standardization of clinical practice and the development and adoption of improved computer-based patient records could facilitate the use of this new research strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9731918     DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00058-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  7 in total

1.  Clinical trials. Simple megatrials are not sufficient.

Authors:  D Barer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-04-24

Review 2.  Bridging the inferential gap: the electronic health record and clinical evidence.

Authors:  Walter F Stewart; Nirav R Shah; Mark J Selna; Ronald A Paulus; James M Walker
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 3.  The need for an iterative process for assessing economic outcomes associated with SSRIs.

Authors:  T L Skaer; D A Sclar; L M Robison; R S Galin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  The Range and Scientific Value of Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Stefan Lange; Stefan Sauerland; Jörg Lauterberg; Jürgen Windeler
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients.

Authors:  José A Sacristán
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  Clinical research and medical care: towards effective and complete integration.

Authors:  José A Sacristán
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 7.  Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how.

Authors:  José A Sacristán; Alfonso Aguarón; Cristina Avendaño-Solá; Pilar Garrido; Juan Carrión; Alipio Gutiérrez; Robert Kroes; Angeles Flores
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.711

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.