Comparative effectiveness research methods symposium overview and summary

Medical Care

Volumn 48, Issue 6 SUPPL., 2010, Pages

  Lohr, Kathleen N ^a  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Health care; Methods; Outcomes; Research; Statistics

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN LEARNING; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONFERENCE PAPER; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FRAIL ELDERLY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; INTERNAL VALIDITY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; CLINICAL TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; PUBLIC POLICY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY;

EID: 77953626317     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e10434     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Lohr KN. Comparative effectiveness research methods: symposium overview. Med Care. 2007;45(suppl 2):S3-S6.
2. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
3. Sox HC. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S7-S8.
4. Kaplan SH, Billimek JT, Sorkin DH, et al. Who can respond to treatment? Identifying patient characteristics related to heterogeneity of treatment effects. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S9-S16.
5. Horn SD, Gassaway J. Practice-based evidence: incorporating clinical heterogeneity and patient-reported outcomes for comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S17-S22.
6. Crystal S, Gaboda D, Lucas J, et al. Assessing medication exposures and outcomes in the frail elderly: research challenges in nursing home pharmacotherapy. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S23-S31.
7. Abernethy AP, Ahmad A, Zafar SY, et al. Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S32-S38.
8. Libby AM, Pace W, Anderson HO, et al. Comparative effectiveness research in DARTNet primary care practices: point of care data collection on hypoglycemia and over-the-counter and herbal use among patients diagnosed with diabetes. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S39-S44.
9. Brown J, Brown JS, Holmes JH, et al. Distributed health data network: a practical and preferred approach to multi-institutional evaluations of comparative effectiveness, safety, and quality of care. Med Care. 2010; 48(suppl 1):S45-S51.
10. Platt R, Takvorian SU, Septimus E, et al. Cluster randomized trials in comparative effectiveness research: randomizing hospitals to test methods for prevention of healthcare-associated infections. Med Care. 2010; 48(suppl 1):S52-S57.
11. Normand S, Marinac-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A. Rethinking analytical strategies for surveillance of medical devices: the case of hip arthroplasty. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S58-S67.
12. Carle AC. Mitigating systematic measurement error in comparative effectiveness research in heterogeneous populations. Med Care. 2010; 48(suppl 1):S68-S74.
13. Hahn EA, Du H, Garcia SF, et al. Literacy-fair measurement of healthrelated quality of life will facilitate comparative effectiveness research in Spanish-speaking cancer outpatients. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S75-S82.
14. Rassen JA, Solomon DH, Curtis JR, et al. Privacy-maintaining propensity score-based pooling of multiple databases applied to a study of biologics. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S83-S89.
15. Roberts MS, Nucifora K, Braithwaite RS. Using mechanistic models to simulate comparative effectiveness trials of therapy and to estimate long-term cutcomes in HIV care. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S90-S95.
16. Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Segal JB, et al. Evaluating health outcomes in the presence of competing risks: a review of statistical methods and clinical applications. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S96-S105.
17. Wu J, Roy J, Stewart WF. Prediction modeling using EHR data: challenges, Strategies, and a Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S106-S113.
18. Brookhart MA, Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S. Confounding control in healthcare databases: challenges and potential approaches. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S114-S120.
19. Sedrakyan A, Marinac-Dabic D, Normand ST, et al. A framework for evidence evaluation and methodological issues in implantable device studies. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S121-S128.
20. Turner JA, Hollingworth W, Comstock B, et al. Comparative effective research policy: experiences conducting a coverage with evidence development study of a therapeutic device. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S129-S136.
21. Berry SM, Ishak KJ, Luce BR, et al. Bayesian meta-analyses for comparative effectiveness and informing coverage decisions. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S137-S144.
22. Ollendorf DA, Pearson SD. An integrated evidence rating to frame comparative effectiveness assessments for decision makers. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S145-S152.
23. Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Breslin MA, et al. Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications. Med Care. 2010;48(suppl 1):S153-S158.