Comparative effectiveness research: Does the emperor have clothes?

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 8-15

  Coulter, Ian D ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; UNITED STATES;

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); UNITED STATES;

EID: 80051942080     PISSN: 10786791     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research-implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's Report. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):328-330.
2. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):206-209.
3. NCCAM 05-AT-102. Comparative Effectiveness Studies of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (http://www.grants.gov) Accessed April 27, 2009.
4. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(3):203-205.
5. Stakeholders Symposium for CER. Center for Medical Technology Policy and the Institute for Integrative Medicine; November 2009; Baltimore, Maryland.
6. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):499-505.
7. 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(12):1624-1632.
8. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S. What kind of randomized trials do we need? CMAJ. 2009;180(10):998-1000.
9. Witt CM. Efficacy, effectiveness, pragmatic trials-guidance on terminology and the advantages of pragmatic trials. Forsch Komplementmed. 2009;16(5):292-294.
10. Coulter I. Observational studies and evidence-based practice: Can't live with them, can't live without them. J Evid Based Den Pract. 2003;3(1):1-4.
11. Coulter ID. Putting the practice into evidence-based dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2007;35(1):45-49.
12. Chiappelli F, Cajulis OS, Newman MG. Comparative effectiveness research in evidence-based dental practice. JEvid Base Dent Pract. 2009;9(2):57-58.
13. Popper K. Conjectures and refutations. In: Theodore Schick, ed. Readings in the Philosophy of Science. London, United Kingdom: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1963:33-39.
14. Oxman AD, Lombard C, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Maclure M, Zwarenstein M. A pragmatic resolution. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):495-498.
15. Thorpe K, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ. 2009;180(10):E47-E57.
16. Karanicolas PJ, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Schünemann H, Guyatt GH. A new "mechanistic-practical" framework for designing and interpreting randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):479-484.
17. Maclure M. Explaining pragmatic trials to pragmatic policymakers J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):476-478.
18. Karanicolas PJ, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Schünemann H, Guyatt GH. The practicalists' response. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):489-494.
19. Oxman AD, Lombard C, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Maclure M, Zwarenstein M. Why we will remain pragmatists: four problems with the impractical mechanistic framework and a better solution. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):485-488.
20. Volpp KG, Das A. Comparative effectiveness-thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. NEngl JMed. 2009;361(4):331-333.
21. Garber AM, Tunis SR. Does comparative-effectiveness research threaten personalized medicine? N Engl JMed. 2009;360(19):1925-1927.
22. Motheral B, Brooks J, Clark MA, et al. A checklist for retrospective database studies-report of the ISORP Task Force on Retrospective Databases. Value Health. 2003;6(2):90-97.
23. Dreyer NA. GRACE Principles. Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness OBSERVED. www.graceprinciples.org Version 25; October 2009:1-10.
24. MacPherson H. Pragmatic clinical trials. Complement Ther Med. 2004;12(2-3):136-140.
25. Jonas WB, Beckner W, Coulter I. Proposal for an integrated evaluation model for the study of whole systems health care in cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006;5(4):315-319.
26. Benson K, Hartz A. A comparison of observational and randomized, controlled trials. New EngJMed. 2000;342(25):1878-1886.
27. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New EngJMed. 2000;342(25):1887-1892.
28. Holmes D, Murray SJ, Perron A, Rail G. Deconstructing the evidence for evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, power and fascism. Int J Evid Based Health. 2006;4(3):180-186.
29. Coulter ID. Sociological studies of the role of the chiropractor: an exercise in ideological hegemony? JManipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14(1):51-58.
30. Jonas WB. The evidence house: how to build an inclusive base for complementary medicine. West J Med. 2001;175(2):79-80.
31. Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebø V, Lewith G, Jonas WB. Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jun 24;6:29.
32. Rawlins M. De testimonio: on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions. Lancet. 2008;372(9656):2152-2161.
33. Coulter I., Hays RD, Danielson CD. The role of the chiropractor in the changing health care system: from marginal to mainstream. Res Sociol Health Care. 1996;13A:95-117.
34. Coulter I., Khorsan R. Is health services research the Holy Grail of CAM research? Altern Ther Health Med. 2008;14(4):40-45.
35. Coulter ID. Competing views of chiropractic: health services research versus ethnographic observation. In: Oths KS, Hinojosa SZ, eds. Healing by Hand: Manual Medicine and Bonesetting in Global Perspective. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press; 2004:43-62.
36. Scrimshaw S, Hurtado E.: RAP: Rapid Assessment Procedures For Nutrition and Primary Care. Anthropological Approaches to Improving Programme Effectiveness. Vol 11. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA; 1987.
37. Beebe J. Rapid Assessment Process: An Introduction. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira; 2001.
38. Scrimshaw SC, Hurtado E. Anthropological involvement in the Central American diarrheal disease control project. Soc Sci Med. 1988:27(1):97-105.
39. Trotter RT, Needle RH, Goosby E, et al. A methodological model for rapid assessment, response, and evaluation: The RARE Program in Public Health. Field Methods. 2001;13(2):137-159.
40. Kelner M, Hall O, Coulter I. Chiropractors: Do They Help? Toronto, Ontario: FitzhenryWhitesides; 1980.
41. Cowie JB, Roebuck JB. An Ethnography of a Chiropractic Clinic: Definitions of a Deviant Situation. New York, NY: Free Press; 1975.
42. Coulehan JL. Chiropractic and the clinical art. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21(4):383-390.
43. Oths K. Communication in a chiropractic clinic: how a D.C. treats his patients. Cult Med Psychiatry. 1994;18(1):83-113.
44. Strom BL. Methodologic challenges to studying patient safety and comparative effectiveness. Med Care. 2007;45(10 Suppl 2):S13-S15.
45. Little P, Lewith G, Webley F, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(12):965-968.
46. Hollinghurst S, Sharp D, Ballard K, et al. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluation. BMJ. 2008 Dec 11;337:a2656.
47. Jick TD. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administration Sci Q 1979;24(4): 602-611.
48. de Munck VC, Sobo EJ, eds. Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press;1998.
49. Herman PM, D'Huyvetter K, Mohler MJ. Are health services research methods a match for CAM? Altern Ther Health Med. 2006;12(3):78-83.
50. Israel BA, Cummings KM, Dignan MB, et al. Evaluation of health education programs: current assessment and future directions. Health Educ Q. 1995;22(3):364-389.
51. Brindis C, Hughes DC, Halfon N, Newacheck PW. The use of formative evaluation to assess integrated services for children. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Child Health Initiative. Eval Health Prof. 1998;21(1):66-90.
52. Scheirer MA. Designing and using process evaluation. In: Hatry HP, Wholey JS, Newcomer KE, eds. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1994:40-68.
53. Rossi PH, Freeman HE, Lipsey MW. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
54. Fønnebø V, Grimsgaard S, Walach H, et al. Researching complementary and alternative treatments-the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 11;7:7.