Medical technology innovation and the importance of comparative effectiveness research

Journal of Medical Marketing

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 55-66

  Giuliano, Karen K ^a   Ferguson, Michael ^a   Silfen, Eric ^a  

^a PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical marketing; Comparative effectiveness research; Cost effectiveness; Research methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858171007     PISSN: 17457904     EISSN: 17457912     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745790412437003     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments. US Congress. Washington, DC: 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/ ftpdocs/88xx/doc8891/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf (accessed 13 February 2011).
2. Institute of Medicine. Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2008.
3. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2009.
4. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: What are we talking about? Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl. 2): S6-S7.
5. Nielsen CP, Funch TM and Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy 2011; 16(Suppl. 2): 6-15.
6. (2009) International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA Resources. http://www.inah-ta.org/HTA/(accessed 13 February 2011).
7. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q 2010; 88(2): 256-276.
8. (2012) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. About NICE. Who We Are. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice (accessed 30 December 2011).
9. Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information. HTA at DIMDI. http://www.dimdi.de/static/en/hta/basisinfo-en.pdf (accessed 30 December 2011).
10. (2012) Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. Effective Health Care Program. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/.
11. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/prgrams/cer/cerannualrpt.pdf (accessed 30 December 2011).
12. Wu AW, Snyder C, Clancy CM and Steinwachs DM. Adding the patient perspective to comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff 2010; 29(10): 1863-1871.
13. Conway PH and Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research-implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's report. N Engl J Med 2009; 361(4): 328-330.
14. Sox HC and Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(3): 203-205.
15. Drummond M, Griffin A and Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs - same or different. Value Health 2009; 12(4): 402-404.
16. Garber AM and Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff 2010; 29(10): 1805-1811.
17. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D and Johnson ML. 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 2009; 12(8): 1044-1052.
18. Concato J, Shah N and Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342(25): 1887-1892. (Pubitemid 30419054)
19. Volpp KG and Das A. Comparative effectiveness-thinking beyond mediation A versus medication B. N Engl J Med 2009; 361(4): 331-333.
20. Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews. CRD's Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, United Kingdom: York Publishing Services Ltd, 2009.
21. Khairy P, O'Donnell CP and Landzberg MJ. Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139(9): 753-760. (Pubitemid 38129075)
22. Khandker RK, Dulski JD, Kilpatrick JP, Ellis RP, Mitchell JB and Baine WB. A decision model and cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines for average-risk adults. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(3): 799-810.
23. Buskens E, Nederkoorn PJ, Buijs-Van der Woude T, Mali WP, Kappelle LJ, Eikelboom BC, et al. Imaging of carotid arteries in symptomatic patients: Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies. Radiology 2004; 233(1): 101-112. (Pubitemid 39280963)
24. Winkler SL, Vogel B, Hoenig H, Ripley DC, Wu S, Fitzgerald SG, et al. Cost, utilization, and policy provision of assistive technology devices to veterans poststroke by Medicare and VA. Med Care 2010; 48(6): 558-562.
25. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17(1): 1-12. (Pubitemid 26120810)
26. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356(15): 1503-1516. (Pubitemid 46588415)
27. Lewis C, Pignone M, Schild LA, Scott T, Winquist A, Rimer BK, et al. Effectiveness of a patient- and practice-level colorec-tal cancers screening intervention in health plan members: Design and baseline findings of the CHOICE trial. Cancer 2010; 116(7): 1664-1673.
28. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision Memo for Screening Compute Tomography Colonography (CTC) for Colorectal Cancer (CAG-00396N). http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/viewdecisionmemo.asp?id220 (accessed 2 March 2011).
29. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: The need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(3): 206-209.
30. Tunis SR, Stryer DB and 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. (Pubitemid 37430387)
31. Lohr KN. Emerging methods in comparative effectiveness and safety: Symposium overview and summary. Med Care 2007; 45(10 Suppl. 2): S5-S8
32. Psaty BM and Siscovick DS. Minimizing bias due to confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research: The importance of restriction. JAMA 2010; 304(8): 897-898.
33. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, Dormuth CR and Siebert U. 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 2009; 12(8): 1062-1073