Preliminary report: The development of the NCCN comparative therapeutic index™ as a clinical evaluative process for existing data in oncology

JNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Volumn 8, Issue SUPPL. 5, 2010, Pages

  Li, Edward C ^a   DeMartino, Jessica ^a  

^a National Comprehensive Cancer Network   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Comparative therapeutic index; Evidence based medicine; Guidelines; NCCN

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CLINICAL EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77957232394     PISSN: 15401405     EISSN: 15401413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0128     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Projected National Health Expenditure Data. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/ 03-NationalHealthAccountsProjected.asp. Accessed October 13, 2009.
2. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments. December 2007. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ 88xx/doc8891/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2010.
3. Congressional Budget Office. Health care. Available at: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=10. Accessed June 21, 2010.
4. Institute of Medicine National Research Council. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
5. United States. Cong. Senate. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 111th Cong., 1st sess. Washington: GPO, 2009
6. Kaiser Family Foundation. Summary of New Health Reform Law. Available at: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010.
7. Friends of Cancer Research. Improving medical decisions through comparative effectiveness research: cancer as a case study. Available at: http://focr.org/files/CER-REPORT-FINAL.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2009.
8. Shumock GT, Pickard AS. Comparative effectiveness research: relevance and applications to pharmacy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66:1278-1286.
9. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003:290:1624-1632.
10. Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Affairs 2005;24:128-132.
11. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report - Part I. Value Health. Epub 2009 Sep 29.
12. Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report - Part II. Value Health. Epub 2009 Sep 10.
13. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report - Part III. Value Health. Epub 2009 Sep 29.
14. Lee SJ, Earle CC, Weeks JC. Outcomes research in oncology: history, conceptual framework, and trends in the literature. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:195-204.
15. Inglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research - IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med 2009;361:325-327.
16. Naik AD, Petersen LA. The neglected purpose of comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2009;160:1929-1931.
17. Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl J Med 2009;360:1925-1927.
18. Rebbeck TR. Inherited genetic markers and cancer outcomes: personalized medicine in the postgenome era. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1972-1974.
19. Department of Health and Human Services. Draft Definition, Prioritization Criteria, and Strategic Framework for Public Comment. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/draftdefinition.html. Accessed October 2, 2009.
20. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:203-205.
21. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:79.
22. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assessment 1998;2:21-22.