Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 241-248

  Chalkidou, Kalipso ^a   Whicher, Danielle ^b   Kary, Weslie ^c   Tunis, Sean ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^b Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

^c Integrated Healthcare Association   (United States)

Author keywords

Coronary artery disease; Health services research; Healthcare reform; Investigational therapies

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFTING; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC TESTING; GROUP PROCESS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEALTH-CARE DECISIONS; HEALTH-CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL THERAPY; MULTI-STAKEHOLDER; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PERFORMANCE MEASURE; PILOT PROJECTS; PRIORITIZATION; REDUCING COSTS; RESEARCH AGENDA; RESEARCH PRIORITIES; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; WORKGROUPS;

COST REDUCTION; DECISION MAKING; DISEASES; HEALTH; HEALTH CARE; HEART; INVESTMENTS;

RESEARCH;

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PILOT STUDY; RESEARCH PRIORITY; REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; RESEARCH; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE REFORM; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; PILOT PROJECTS; RESEARCH; THERAPIES, INVESTIGATIONAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70350464620     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309990225     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Effective health care. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ (accessed July 3, 2008).
2. America's Health Insurance Plans Board of Directors. AHIP board of directors statement on setting a higher bar for quality and value through comparative effectiveness research. November 2007. http://www.ahip.org/content/ default.aspx?bc =31|44|21474 (accessed July 3, 2008).
3. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 111th Congress, 1st Session. January 6, 2009. http:// frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname = 111-cong-bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf (accessed July 3, 2008). Washington, DC: US Senate.
4. Black N. A national strategy for research and development: Lessons from England. Ann Rev Public Health. 1997;18:484-505.
5. Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: The comparative Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:703-716.
6. Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, et al. The role of modeling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:235-251.
7. Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process. Institute of Medicine. Scientific opportunities and public needs: Improving setting and public input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1998.
8. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: Issues and options for an expanded Federal role. December 2007. http://www.cbo.gov /ftpdocs/88xx/doc8891/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness. pdf (accessed June 20, 2008).
9. Department of Health, United Kingdom. Standing group on health technology: Report. London: The Office of Information; 1994.
10. Donaldson MS, Sox HC. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
11. Institute of Medicine. Compelling comparative effectiveness studies, priority assessment inventory project, February-September 2008. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/28312/RT-EBM/ 55069/60576/60595.aspx (accessed June 20, 2008).
12. Institute of Medicine. Knowing what works in healthcare: A roadmap for the nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008. www.iom.edu/CMS/ 3809/34261/50718.aspx (accessed June 20, 2008).
13. Kirschner N. Improving availability of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information: An essential feature for a high-quality and efficient United States health care system. A position paper of the American College of Physicians. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2008.
14. Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee. Medicare evidentiary priorities. August 2008. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CoverageGenInfo/07- EvidentiaryPriorities.asp (accessed June 20, 2008).
15. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Producing comparative-effectiveness information. In: Report to the Congress. Promoting greater efficiency in Medicare. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2007. www.medpac.gov/chapters/Jun07-Ch02.pdf (accessed June 20, 2008).
16. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Profile 2008. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2008. http://www. phrma.org/files/2008%20Profile.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008).
17. Rowe G, Wright G, Bolger F. Delphi:Areevaluation of research and theory. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1991;39:235-251.
18. Sackett DL, Hoey J. Why randomized controlled trials fail but needn't: a new series is launched. CMAJ. 2000;162:1301-1302.
19. Schoen C, Guterman S, Shih A, et al. Bending the curve: Options for achieving savings and improving value in U.S. health spending. The Commonwealth Fund, December 2007. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr-doc/Schoen-bending thecurve-1080.pdf?section=4039 (accessed June 20, 2008).
20. United States Senate. Bill S.3408: Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008 (Introduced to Senate). July 31, 2008. Washington, DC: US Senate.
21. Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL. Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Acad Manage J. 1971;14:203-212.
22. Velasquez EJ, Lee KL, O'Conner CM, et al. The rationale and design of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:1540-1547.
23. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320:976-980.