Implications of the principle of question propagation for comparative-effectiveness and "data mining" research

JAMA

Volumn 305, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 298-299

  Djulbegovic, Mia ^a   Djulbegovic, Benjamin ^b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b Center for Evidence based Medicine and Health Outcomes Research   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^d H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL MEDICINE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DATA MINING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NOTE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 78751502220     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.2013     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Commitee on Comparative Research Prioritization. Institute of Medicine Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2009.
2. Sox HC. Defining comparative effectiveness research: the importance of getting it right. Med Care. 2010;48(6)(suppl):S7-S8.
3. Rescher N. The Limits of Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press; 1999.
4. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1959.
5. LaValley MP, Felson DT. Truth survival. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):932.
6. Brassey J. Number of clinical questions. Trip database Web site. http://blog.tripdatabase.com/2007/01/number-of-clinical-questions.html. Posted January 25, 2007. Accessed December 20, 2010.
7. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH, Ashcroft RE. Epistemologic inquiries in evidence-based medicine. Cancer Control. 2009;16(2):158-168.
8. Platt JR. Strong inference: certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. Science. 1964;146(3642):347-353.