Future research and methodological approaches

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue SUPPL.7, 2011, Pages 57-61

  Pater, J ^a   Rochon, J ^b   Parmar, M ^c   Selby, P ^d  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c MRC CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^d Clinical Research Network and Clinical Director of the Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH PRIORITY; STUDY DESIGN; FORECASTING; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 84855384485     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr428     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Seby P, Autier P. Chapter 1: The impact of the process of clinical research on health service outcomes. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(suppl 7): vii5-vii9.
2. Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a 'trial effect'. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54(3): 217-224.
3. Peppercorn JM, Weeks JC, Cook EF, Joffe S. Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review. Lancet 2004; 363(9405): 263-270.
4. Vist GE, Bryant D, Somerville L et al. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 (3): MR000009.
5. Gnant M. on behalf of the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group. Impact of participation in randomized clinical trials on survival of women with early stage breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 74a (Abstr 287).
6. Schmoor C, Olschewski M, Schumacher M. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies. Stat Med 1996; 15(3): 263-271.
7. Krzyzanowska MK, Kaplan R, Sullivan R. Chapter 2: How may clinical research improve healthcare outcomes? Ann Oncol 2011; 22(suppl 7): vii10-vii15.
8. Rochon J, du Bois A. Chapter 3: Clinical research in epithelial ovarian cancer and patients' outcome. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(suppl 7): vii16-vii19.
9. Cameron D, Stead M, Lester N et al. Chapter 5: Research-intensive cancer care in the NHS in the UK. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(suppl 7): vii29-vii35.
10. du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, Pfisterer J. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005; 15(2): 183-191.
11. Karjalainen S, Palva I. Do treatment protocols improve end results? A study of survival of patients with multiple myeloma in Finland. BMJ 1989; 299(6707): 1069-1072.
12. Majumdar SR, Roe MT, Peterson ED et al. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168(6): 657-662.
13. Brown N, Melville M, Gray D et al. Relevance of clinical trial results in myocardial infarction to medical practice: comparison of four year outcome in participants of a thrombolytic trial, patients receiving routine thrombolysis, and those deemed ineligible for thrombolysis. Heart 1999; 81(6): 598-602.
14. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009; 360(5): 491-499.
15. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 1967; 20(8): 637-648. Republished in J Clin Epidemiol 2009 May; 62(5): 499-505.
16. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personality Soc Psychol 1986; 51: 1173-1182.
17. Hafeman DM, Schwartz S. Opening the Black Box: a motivation for the assessment of mediation. Int J Epidemiol 2009; 38(3): 838-845.
18. Emsley RA, Dunn G, White IR. Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised trials of complex interventions. Stat Methods Med Res2010; 19: 237-270.
19. Clarke M, Loudon K. Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials 2011; 12(1): 16.
20. Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28(2): 182-191.
21. Gambia Hepatitis Study Group. The Gambia Hepatitis Intervention Study. Cancer Res 1987; 47(21): 5782-5787.
22. Brown CA, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 54.
23. Heuer C, Abel U. The analysis of intervention effects using observational data bases. In Abel U, Koch A (eds): Nonrandomized Comparative Clinical Studies. Symposium Publishing: Duesseldorf 1998; 101-107.
24. Friede T, Henderson R. Intervention effects in observational survival studies with an application in total hip replacements. Stat Med 2003; 22(24): 3725-3737.
25. Stead M, Cameron D, Lester N et al. Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom. Brit J Cancer 2011; 104: 1529-1534.
26. Cancer Quality Council of Ontario. http://csqi.cancercare.on.ca/cms/one.aspx?portalId=63405&pageId=67928 (31 August 2011, date last accessed).
27. Baker SG, Lindeman KS. The paired availability design: a proposal for evaluating epidural analgesia during labor. Stat Med 1994; 13(21): 2269-2278.
28. Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979; 300(22): 1242-1245.
29. Baker SG, Kramer BS, Prorok PC. Comparing breast cancer mortality rates before-and-after a change in availability of screening in different regions: extension of the paired availability design. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4: 12.