Maximizing the clinical utility of comparative effectiveness research

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 88, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 876-879

  Umscheid, C A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; THERAPY EFFECT;

ANIMALS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78449272075     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2010.200     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Volpp, K.G. & Asch, d. comparative effectiveness-thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 331-333 (2009).
2. Kaiser Family Foundation. Side-by-Side comparison of Major Health care Reform Proposals Accessed 26 March 2010.
3. Sox, H.c. & Greenfeld, S. comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 203-205 (2009).
4. Luce, B.R. et al. EBM, HTA, and cER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 88, 256-276 (2010).
5. Smart, A. A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 18, 377-382 (2006).
6. Pauker, S.G. & Kassirer, J.P. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N. Engl. J. Med. 302, 1109-1117 (1980).
7. Weustink, A.c. et al. diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease. Ann. Intern. Med. 152, 630-639 (2010).
8. Sun, F., Bruening, W., Uhl, S., Ballard, R., Tipton, K. & Schoelles, K. Quality, Regulation and clinical Utility of Laboratory-developed Molecular Tests . Accessed 30 June 2010.
9. Epstein, R.M., Alper, B.S. & Quill, T.E. communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA 291, 2359-2366 (2004).
10. Halvorsen, P.A., Selmer, R. & Kristiansen, I.S. diferent ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 146, 848-856 (2007).
11. O'connor, A. et al. decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. cd001431 (2009).
12. Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P. & dieckmann, N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Af. (Millwood). 26, 741-748 (2007).
13. Steinbrook, R. Personally controlled online health data-the next big thing in medical care? N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 1653-1656 (2008).
14. Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S. & Welch, H.G. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 150, 516-527 (2009).
15. Lee, S.S. & crawley, L. Research 2.0: social networking and direct-to-consumer (dTc) genomics. Am. J. Bioeth. 9, 35-44 (2009).
16. Chou, W.Y., Hunt, Y.M., Beckjord, E.B., Moser, R.P. & Hesse, B.W. Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J. Med. Internet Res. 11, e48 (2009).
17. Scanfeld, d., Scanfeld, V. & Larson, E.L. dissemination of health information through social networks: twitter and antibiotics. Am. J. Infect. Control 38, 182-188 (2010).
18. Regenberg, A.C. Tweeting science and ethics: social media as a tool for constructive public engagement. Am. J. Bioeth. 10, 30-31 (2010).
19. Rajkumar, S.V., Sampathkumar, P. & Gustafson, A.B. Number needed to treat is a simple measure of treatment efficacy for clinicians. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 11, 357-359 (1996).
20. Grimshaw, J.M. & Russell, I.T. effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 342, 1317-1322 (1993).
21. Umscheid, c.A., Agarwal, R.K. & Brennan, P.J. Healthcare Infection control Practices Advisory committee. Updating the guideline development methodology of the Healthcare Infection control Practices Advisory committee (HIcPAc). Am. J. Infect. Control 38, 264-273 (2010).
22. Osherof, J.A., ed. Improving Medication Use and Outcomes With Clinical Decision Support: A Step-By-Step Guide (Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society, chicago, IL, 2009).
23. Shifman, R.N., Karras, B.T., Agrawal, A., Chen, R., Marenco, L. & Nath, S. GEM: a proposal for a more comprehensive guideline document model using XML. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 7, 488-498 (2000).
24. Weingart, S.N. Acquiring advanced technology. decision-making strategies at twelve medical centers. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 9, 530-538 (1993).
25. Weinstein, M.c. Principles of cost-effective resource allocation in health care organizations. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 6, 93-103 (1990).
26. Cicchetti, A., Marchetti, M., dibidino, R., Corio, M. Hospital based HTA worldwide: the results of an international survey. Health Technology Assessment International (9 July 2008).
27. Mitchell, M.d., Williams, K., Brennan, P.J. & Umscheid, c.A. Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: two case studies. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 26, 294-300 (2010).
28. Umscheid, C.A., Williams, K. & Brennan, P.J. J Gen Intern Med 2010 (in press).
29. Dougherty, D. & conway, P.H. The "3T's" road map to transform US health care: the "how" of high-quality care. JAMA 299, 2319-2321 (2008).
30. Blumenthal, d. Launching HITEcH. N. Engl. J. Med. 362, 382-385 (2010).
31. Boulton, G. Insufcient evidence: frst in an occasional series. Health care tries to fgure out what works best. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 2 May 2010.