The promise and realities of comparative effectiveness research
- PMID: 20683886
- PMCID: PMC3544942
- DOI: 10.1002/sim.3936
The promise and realities of comparative effectiveness research
Abstract
Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) has been given a broad and ambitious mandate. Will it be able to deliver the multifaceted and granular comparative information that it has been tasked with developing? After a discussion of the general conditions for the feasibility of CER, we focus our attention on one of the most challenging areas: the evaluation of diagnostic tests and biomarkers.
Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figures
Comment on
-
Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure.Stat Med. 2010 Aug 30;29(19):1963-76. doi: 10.1002/sim.3818. Stat Med. 2010. PMID: 20564311
References
-
- Gatsonis CA. Design of Evaluations of Imaging Technologies: Development of a paradigm. Academic Radiology. 2000;7:681–683. - PubMed
-
- Bossuyt P, Lijmer J, Mol B. Randomised comparison of medical tests:sometimes invalid, not always efficient. Lancet. 2000;356:1844–47. - PubMed
-
- Hillner B, Siegel B, Liu D, et al. Impact of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: Initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2155–2161. - PubMed
-
- Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Collaborators. The impact of mammography and adjuvant therapy on U.S. breast cancer mortality (1975–2000): Collective Results from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs. 2006;36:1–126.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources