Integrating randomized comparative effectiveness research with patient care

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 374, Issue 22, 2016, Pages 2152-2158

  Fiore, Louis D ^a   Lavori, Philip W ^b,c  

^a VA BOSTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATORVASTATIN; CHLORHEXIDINE; INSULIN; SIMVASTATIN; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NURSE ATTITUDE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SAFETY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; STANDARDS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; CHLORHEXIDINE; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; INSULIN; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SELECTION; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT;

EID: 84973386990     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1510057     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Noto MJ, Domenico HJ, Byrne DW, et al. Chlorhexidine bathing and health care-associated infections: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015; 313: 369-78.
2. van Staa T-P, Dyson L, McCann G, et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Tech nol Assess 2014; 18: 1-146.
3. Fiore LD, Brophy M, Ferguson RE, et al. A point-of-care clinical trial comparing insulin administered using a sliding scale versus a weight-based regimen. Clin Trials 2011; 8: 183-95.
4. D'Avolio L, Ferguson R, Goryachev S, et al. Implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs' first point-of-care clinical trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19(e1):e170-6.
5. Mosis G, Dieleman JP, Stricker BC, van der Lei J, Sturkenboom MC. A randomized database study in general practice yielded quality data but patient recruitment in routine consultation was not practical. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 497-502.
6. Weir CR, Butler J, Thraen I, et al. Veterans Healthcare Administration providers' attitudes and perceptions regarding pragmatic trials embedded at the point of care. Clin Trials 2014; 11: 292-9.
7. Faden R, Kass N, Whicher D, Stewart W, Tunis S. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care 2013; 51(Suppl 3):S53-7.
8. Identifying and recruiting participants for health research: a public dialogue for the Health Research Authority. London: OPM Group, July 2015 (http://www.opm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/hra-sciencewise-dialogue-report-final-july-2015-recruiting-participants.pdf).
9. Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M, et al. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 690-6.
10. Winhusen T, Wilder C, Wexelblatt SL, et al. Design considerations for point-of-care clinical trials comparing methadone and buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence in pregnancy and for neonatal abstinence syndrome. Contemp Clin Trials 2014; 39: 158-65.