Fears and promises of comparative effectiveness research

Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics

Volumn 99, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1311-1313

  Loddenkemper, Tobias ^a   Nichol, Sarena Michell ^a   Allred, Elizabeth N ^a   Leviton, Alan ^a  

^a BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASTHMA; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; CEREBRAL PALSY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEAR; HUMAN; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OBESITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; FEAR; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; PROFESSIONAL-FAMILY RELATIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77955866872     PISSN: 08035253     EISSN: 16512227     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.01945.x     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Carman KL, Maurer M, Yegian JM, Dardess P, McGee J, Evers M, et al. Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care. Health Aff 2010 29 : 1400 6.
2. Slack WV. The patient's right to decide. Lancet 1977 2 : 240.
3. Légaré F, Ratté S, Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Gravel K, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 12 : 5 : CD006732.
4. Tariman JD, Berry DL, Cochrane B, Doorenbos A, Schepp K. Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 2010 21 : 1145 51.
5. Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Sox H, eds. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research.
6. Partnership to Improve Patient Care. ALLHAT Case Study. Available from http://www.improvepatientcare.org/case-studies/test-case-study.
7. Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research-IOM Recommendations. N Engl J Med 2009 361 : 325 7.
8. Zwelling LA. Comparative Effectiveness' Research Is Always Behind the Curve. The Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2010.
9. Wang OJ, Krumholz HM. Clinical trial participation: are we studying the patients we are trying to treat? Eur J Heart Fail 2009 11 : 1021 2.
10. Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? NEJM 2009 360 : 1925 7.
11. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the institute of medicine. Ann Intern Med 2009 151 : 203 5.
12. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med 2009 151 : 206 9.
13. Lasky T. Estimates of pediatric medication use in the United States: current abilities and limitations. Clin Ther 2009 31 : 436 45.
14. Luo Z, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ. Applying propensity score methods in medical research: pitfalls and prospects. Med Care Res Rev 2010 May 4. (Epub ahead of print).
15. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research.
16. VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC. Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010 362 : 970 3.
17. Whitney SN, McCullough LB. Physicians' silent decisions: because patient autonomy does not always come first. Am J Bioeth 2007 7 : 33 8.
18. Schiff GD, Galanter WL. Promoting more conservative prescribing. JAMA 2009 301 : 865 7.
19. Paterniti DA, Fancher TL, Cipri CS, Timmermans S, Heritage J, Kravitz RL. Getting to 'no': strategies primary care physicians use to deny patient requests. Arch Intern Med 2010 170 : 381 8.