Using health technology assessment to identify gaps in evidence and inform study design for comparative effectiveness research

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 30, Issue 34, 2012, Pages 4256-4261

  Tunis, Sean R ^a   Turkelson, Charles ^a  

^a Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; METHODOLOGY; ONCOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; RESEARCH DESIGN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84870685042     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6338     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment: HTA resources. http://inahta.episerverhotell.net/HTA/
2. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ Publication No. 10(11)-EHC063-EF, 2011
3. Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Institute of Medicine: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2011
4. EunetHTA: EunetHTA start page. http://www.eunethta.eu/
5. Higgins J, Green S (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (ed 5.1.0). Oxford, United Kingdom, Cochrane Collaboration, 2011
6. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM: Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290:1624-1632, 2003 (Pubitemid 37430387)
7. Abernethy AP, Coeytaux RR, Carson K, et al: Report on the Evidence Regarding Off-Label Indications for Targeted Therapies Used in Cancer Treatment. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2010
8. Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Taylor B, et al: Comparative Effectiveness of Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 13. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2008
9. Bannuru RR, Dvorak T, Obadan N, et al: Comparative evaluation of radiation treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer: An updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155:171-178, 2011
10. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al: Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 301:831-841, 2009
11. Harpole LH, Kelley MJ, Schreiber G, et al: Assessment of the scope and quality of clinical practice guidelines in lung cancer. Chest 123:7S-20S, 2003 (suppl) (Pubitemid 36135700)
12. Schwartz D, Lellouch J: Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis 20:637-648, 1967
13. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, et al: Clinical Epidemiology: How To Do Clinical Practice Research (ed 3). Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, pp 183-188
14. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al: A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): A tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 62:464-475, 2009
15. Trikalinos TA, Dahabreh IJ, Lee J, et al: Methods Research on Future Research Needs: Defining an Optimal Format for Presenting Research Needs. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC027-EF, 2011
16. Clarke L, Clarke M, Clarke T: How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? J Health Serv Res Policy 12:101-103, 2007 (Pubitemid 46733212)
17. Scott NA, Moga C, Harstall C, et al: Using health technology assessment to identify research gaps: An unexploited resource for increasing the value of clinical research. Healthc Policy 3:e109-e127, 2008
18. Chalkidou K, Whicher D, Kary W, et al: Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25:241-248, 2009
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Research Recommendations Process and Methods Guide, 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/ aboutnice/howwework/researchanddevelopment/uncertainties.jsp
20. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Future research needs: Methods research series. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/ search-forguides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displayProduct&productID= 481
21. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA: Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 64:1325-1330, 2011
22. Rothenberg BM, Marbella A, Belinson SE, et al: Future Research Needs for Comparative Effectiveness of Treatments of Localized Prostate Cancer: Identification of Future Research Needs from Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 13. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ Publication No. 10-EHC072-EF, 2010
23. Carey T, Sanders G, Viswanathan M, et al: Framework for Considering Study Designs for Future Research Needs: Methods Future Research Needs Paper No. 8. Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC048-EF, 2012
24. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M: Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med 29:1963-1976, 2010
25. Goodman S, Dickerson K, Wilson R: Gene Expression Profile Tests for Early Stage Breast Cancer, Effectiveness Guidance Document: Methodological Guidance for the Design of Comparative Effectiveness Studies. Baltimore, MD, Center for Medical Technology Policy, 2009
26. Mullins CD, Montgomery R, Abernethy AP, et al: Recommendations for clinical trials of off-label drugs used to treat advanced-stage cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:661-666, 2012
27. Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD, et al: Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol 30:4249-4255, 2012