Review ArticleReviews and Contemporary Updates

Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research Through the Lens of Healthcare Decisionmakers

Eboni G. Price-Haywood
Ochsner Journal June 2015, 15 (2) 154-161;

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Moses H 3rd.,
    2. Matheson DH,
    3. Dorsey ER,
    4. George BP,
    5. Sadoff D,
    6. Yoshimura S.
    (11 13, 2013) The anatomy of health care in the United States. JAMA 310(18):1947–1963, pmid:24219951.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Institute of Medicine
    (2009) Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research (National Academies Press, Washington, DC) http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12648. Accessed September 25, 2014.
  3. ↵
    1. Tunis SR,
    2. Stryer DB,
    3. Clancy CM.
    (9 24, 2003) Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12):1624–1632, pmid:14506122.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Kinney ED.
    (2011) Comparative effectiveness research under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: can new bottles accommodate old wine? Am J Law Med 37(4):522–566, pmid:22292212.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, Pub L No. 106-129, https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/580. Accessed November 28, 2014.
  6. ↵
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: General Provisions—Definitions, 42 USC §299-299c-7 (2010), http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title42/chapter6A&edition=prelim. Accessed November 28, 2014.
  7. ↵
    1. Thorpe JH.
    (Nov-Dec 2010) Comparative effectiveness research and health reform: implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep 125(6):909–912, pmid:21121237.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hickam D,
    2. Slutsky J.
    Getting to Know PCORI: From Application to Closeout [PCORI workshop], PCORI funding announcements (PFAs), methodology standards, and national priorities, (San Diego, CA) Presented at, September 22-23, 2014, http://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/PCORI-Getting-To-Know-PCORI-Workshop_PFA-Methodology-Standards-and-National-Priorities_092214.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2014.
  9. ↵
    1. Cargo M,
    2. Mercer SL.
    (2008) The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice. Annu Rev Public Health 29:325–350, pmid:18173388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Concannon TW,
    2. Fuster M,
    3. Saunders T,
    4. et al.
    (12, 2014) A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med 29(12):1692–1701, pmid:24893581.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Domecq JP,
    2. Prutsky G,
    3. Elraiyah T,
    4. et al.
    (2 26, 2014) Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 14:89, pmid:24568690.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Patient Centered Outcome Research Institute
    PCORI Patient and Family Engagement Rubric, http://www.pcori.org/assets/2014/02/PCORI-Patient-and-Family-Engagement-Rubric.pdf. February 3, 2014. Accessed November 28, 2014.
  13. ↵
    1. Sox HC,
    2. Goodman SN.
    (4, 2012) The methods of comparative effectiveness research. Annu Rev Public Health 33:425–445, pmid:22224891.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Heisler M,
    2. Hofer TP,
    3. Schmittdiel JA,
    4. et al.
    (6 12, 2012) Improving blood pressure control through a clinical pharmacist outreach program in patients with diabetes mellitus in 2 high-performing health systems: the adherence and intensification of medications cluster randomized, controlled pragmatic trial. Circulation 125(23):2863–2872, pmid:22570370.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Sjöström L.
    (3, 2013) Review of the key results from the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) trial—a prospective controlled intervention study of bariatric surgery. J Intern Med 273(3):219–234, pmid:23163728.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Krumme AA,
    3. Avorn J,
    4. et al.
    (10 27, 2014) Initial choice of oral glucose-lowering medication for diabetes mellitus: a patient-centered comparative effectiveness study. JAMA Intern Med, Epub, doi, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5294.
  17. ↵
    1. Schneeweiss S.
    (8, 2007) Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82(2):143–156, pmid:17554243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Berger ML,
    2. Dreyer N,
    3. Anderson F,
    4. Towse A,
    5. Sedrakyan A,
    6. Normand SL.
    (Mar-Apr 2012) Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 15(2):217–230, pmid:22433752.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Berger ML,
    2. Mamdani M,
    3. Atkins D,
    4. Johnson ML.
    (Nov-Dec 2009) 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 12(8):1044–1052, pmid:19793072.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Chalkidou K,
    2. Tunis S,
    3. Whicher D,
    4. Fowler R,
    5. Zwarenstein M.
    (8, 2012) The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 9(4):436–446, pmid:22752634.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Rosenthal GE.
    (2014) The role of pragmatic clinical trials in the evolution of learning health systems. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 125:204–216, pmid:25125735, discussion 217-218.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Luce BR,
    2. Drummond MF,
    3. Dubois RW,
    4. et al.
    (9, 2012) Principles for planning and conducting comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res 1(5):431–440, pmid:24236420.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berger ML,
    2. Martin BC,
    3. Husereau D,
    4. et al.
    (3, 2014) A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 17(2):143–156, pmid:24636373, Erratum in: Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):489.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Dreyer NA,
    2. Schneeweiss S,
    3. McNeil BJ,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2010) GRACE principles: recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Am J Manag Care 16(6):467–471, pmid:20560690.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Schneeweiss S.
    (Nov-Dec 2009) On guidelines for comparative effectiveness research using nonrandomized studies in secondary data sources. Value Health 12(8):1041, pmid:19744290.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Schneeweiss S,
    2. Seeger JD,
    3. Jackson JW,
    4. Smith SR.
    (8, 2013) Methods for comparative effectiveness research/patient-centered outcomes research: from efficacy to effectiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 66((8 Suppl)):S1–S4, pmid:23849143.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Magid DJ,
    3. Beck A,
    4. Ritzwoller D,
    5. Estabrooks PA.
    (6, 2005) Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: design and measurement recommendations. Med Care 43(6):551–557, pmid:15908849.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Thorpe KE,
    2. Zwarenstein M,
    3. Oxman AD,
    4. et al.
    (5, 2009) A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 62(5):464–475, pmid:19348971.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Grossmann C,
    2. Sanders J,
    3. English RA.
    (2013) Roundtable on Value & Science-driven Health Care, Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation, Institute of Medicine. The Learning Health Systems Series, Large Simple Trials and Knowledge Generation in a Learning Health System: Workshop Summary (National Academies Press, Washington, DC) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201274/. Accessed November 28, 2014.
    1. Saag KG,
    2. Mohr PE,
    3. Esmail L,
    4. et al.
    (11, 2012) Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of pragmatic clinical trials in older adults in the United States. Contemp Clin Trials 33(6):1211–1216, pmid:22796098.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Hartung DM,
    2. Guise JM,
    3. Fagnan LJ,
    4. Davis MM,
    5. Stange KC.
    (1, 2012) Role of practice-based research networks in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res 1(1):45–55, pmid:23105964.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Greene SM,
    2. Reid RJ,
    3. Larson EB.
    (8 7, 2012) Implementing the learning health system: from concept to action. Ann Intern Med 157(3):207–210, pmid:22868839.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Umscheid CA,
    2. Williams K,
    3. Brennan PJ.
    (12, 2010) Hospital-based comparative effectiveness centers: translating research into practice to improve the quality, safety and value of patient care. J Gen Intern Med 25(12):1352–1355, pmid:20697961.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    AHRQ Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs) website, About, http://pbrn.ahrq.gov/about. Updated May 2013. Accessed November 28, 2014.
  35. ↵
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    PBRN Slides. AHRQ Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs) website, http://pbrn.ahrq.gov/pbrn-registry/pbrn-slides. Updated January 2014. Accessed November 28, 2014.
  36. ↵
    1. Mold JW,
    2. Peterson KA.
    (May-Jun 2005) Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med 3((Suppl 1)):S12–S20, pmid:15928213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Lobb R,
    2. Colditz GA.
    (2013) Implementation science and its application to population health. Annu Rev Public Health 34:235–251, pmid:23297655.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Masica AL,
    2. Ballard DJ.
    (12, 2009) The protean role of health care delivery organizations in comparative effectiveness research. Mayo Clin Proc 84(12):1062–1064, pmid:19955242.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords