Commentary: How the debate about comparative effectiveness research should impact the future of clinical trials

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 31, Issue 25, 2012, Pages 3051-3053

  Lauer, Michael S ^a  

^a NATIONAL HEART LUNG AND BLOOD INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Observational studies; Randomized trials

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; STREPTOKINASE;

CAROTID ENDARTERECTOMY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRUG EFFICACY; EDITORIAL; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; TUBERCULOSIS;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84867433762     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.5400     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research-IOM recommendations. New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 361:325-328.
2. Califf RM. Simple principles of clinical trials remain powerful. Journal of the American Medical Association 2005; 293:489-491.
3. IOM. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research, Washington, DC, 2009.
4. Avorn J. Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 360: 1927-1929.
5. Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: the intersection of science and health care. Science Translational Medicine 2010; 2. 37cm18.
6. Tinetti ME, Studenski SA. Comparative effectiveness research and patients with multiple chronic conditions. New England Journal of Medicine 2011; 364:2478-2481.
7. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009; 151:206-209.
8. Yusuf S. Transforming the scientific, health care, and sociopolitical culture of an entire country through clinical research: the story of GISSI. American Heart Journal 2004; 148:193-195.
9. Califf RM. Clinical trials bureaucracy: unintended consequences of well-intentioned policy. Clinical Trials 2006; 3:496-502.
10. Lauer MS. The historical and moral imperatives of comparative effectiveness research. Statistics in Medicine 2010; 29:1982-1984. discussion 1996-1987.
11. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine (PLoS = Public Library of Science) 2005; 2:e124.
12. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003; 290:1624-1632.
13. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2009; 180:E47-57.
14. Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Tognoni G. Participation versus education: the GISSI story and beyond. American Heart Journal 2004; 148:222-229.