Building useful evidence: Changing the clinical research paradigm to account for comparative effectiveness research

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 263-270

  Greenfield, Sheldon ^a   Kaplan, Sherrie H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; enoxaparin; patient centered outcomes research; prostate cancer; research methods

Indexed keywords

ENOXAPARIN; PLACEBO; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRUG EFFICACY; EARLY CANCER; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE NEED; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; TREATMENT PLANNING; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM;

ANTICOAGULANTS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; ENOXAPARIN; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84886015249     PISSN: 20426305     EISSN: 20426313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/cer.12.23     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, USA (2009).
2. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, USA (2011).
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Finding What Works in Health Care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, USA (2011).
4. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Statist. Med. 29(19), 1963-1976 (2010).
5. Hochman M, McCormick D. Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications. JAMA 303, 951-958 (2010).
6. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D et al. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63, 502-512 (2010).
7. Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Segal JB, Wu AW, Scharfstein D, Boyd C. Evaluating health outcomes in the presence of competing risks: a review of statistical methods and clinical applications. Med. Care. 48(6), S96-S105 (2010).
8. Chou R, Fu R, Carson S, Saha S, Helfand M. Methodological shortcomings predicted lower harm estimates in one of two sets of studies of clinical interventions. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 60(1), 18-28 (2007).
9. Tinetti ME, Studenski SA. Comparative effectiveness research and patients with multiple chronic conditions. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2478-2481 (2011).
10. Greenfield S, Kravitz R, Duan N, Kaplan SH. Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. Am. J. Med. 120, S3-S9 (2007).
11. Greenfield S, Billimek J, Pellegrini F et al. Comorbidity affects the relationship between glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in diabetes: a cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(12), 854-860 (2009).
12. Kaplan SH, Billimek J, Sorkin D, Ngo- Metzger Q, Greenfield S. Who can respond to treatment- Identifying patient characteristics related to heterogeneity of treatment effects. Med. Care 48(6), S9-S16 (2010).
13. Hull RD, Schellong SM, Tapson VF et al. Extended-duration venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with recently reduced mobility: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 153, 8-18 (2010).
14. Kent DM, Lindenauer PK. Aggregating and disaggregating patients in clinical trials and their subgroup analyses. Ann. Intern. Med. 153, 51-52 (2010).
15. Segal JB, Weiss C, Varadhan R. Understanding Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in Pragmatic Trials with an Example of a Large, Simple Trial of a Drug Treatment for Osteoporosis (White Paper). Center for Medical Technology Policy, MD, USA (2011).
16. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA 298, 1209-1212 (2007).
17. Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JPA, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials 11, 85 (2010).
18. Rothwell PM, Warlow CP. Prediction of benefit from carotid endarterectomy in individual patients: a risk-modelling study. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet 353, 2105-2110 (1999).
19. VanderWeele TJ, Knol MJ. Interpretation of subgroup analyses in randomized trials: heterogeneity versus secondary interventions. Ann. Intern. Med. 154, 680-683 (2011).
20. Hopkins LN, Roubin GS, Chakhtoura EY et al. The carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial: credentialing of interventionalists and final results of lead-in phase. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 19(2), 153-162 (2010).
21. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ 180(10), E47-E57 (2009).
22. Gage BF, van Walraven C, Pearce L et al. Selecting patients with atrial fibrillation for anticoagulation: stroke risk stratification in patients taking aspirin. Circulation 110, 2287-2292 (2004).
23. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M, McCulloch P. When are randomised trials unnecessary- Picking signal from noise. BMJ 334 (7589), 349-351 (2007).
24. Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med. Care 45, S143-S148 (2007).
25. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Performance of propensity score calibration - a simulation study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 165, 1110-1118 (2007).
26. Litwin M, Greenfield S, Elkin E, Lubeck D, Broering J, Kaplan S, Assessment of prognosis with the total illness burden index for prostate cancer (TIBI-CaP): validation of an instrument to aid clinicians in treatment choice. Cancer 109(9), 1777-1783 (2007).
27. Daskivich T, Sadetsky N, Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Litwin M. Less is more: severity of comorbidity and non-prostate cancer mortality in men with early-stage prostate cancer. Arch. Intern. Med. 170(15), 1396-1397 (2010).
28. Karanicolas PJ, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Schünemann H, Guyatt GH. A new 'mechanistic-practical' framework for designing and interpreting randomized trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 479-484 (2009).
29. ACCORD Study Group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in Type 2 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 24, 2545-2559 (2008).
30. McHorney CA. The adherence estimator: a brief, proximal screener for patient propensity to adhere to prescription medications for chronic disease. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 25, 215-238 (2009).
31. McHorney CA, Victor Spain C, Alexander CM, Simmons J. Validity of the adherence estimator in the prediction of 9-month persistence with medications prescribed for chronic diseases: a prospective analysis of data from pharmacy claims. Clin. Ther. 31(11), 2584-2607 (2009).
32. Cantrell R, Brenneman S, Kaplan S et al. PDB10 assessing the ability of patient reported measures to discriminate proxies for treatment response. Value Health 14(3), A92 (2011).