Commentary: Will academia embrace comparative effectiveness research?

Abstract

In recent medical history, a number of therapies that were widely adopted based on observational data or pathophysiological constructs turned out to be useless or even harmful when tested in randomized comparative effectiveness trials. These therapies not only harmed patients but also did a disservice to the practical education of medical students, residents, and fellows. These trainees effectively learned that it is acceptable to implement practices even in the absence of high-quality evidence, and so they may not have learned how to analyze the quality of evidence. In this issue of Academic Medicine, seven groups address critical aspects of the intersection between comparative effectiveness research (CER) and academic medicine. Their topics include the need at academic health centers for cultural shifts, for addressing conflicts of interest, for exploiting academic talent and electronic information resources, for interacting well with policy makers, for incorporating economic evaluations, for incorporating tests of educational methods, for developing multidisciplinary models, and for integrating CER into "predictive health." This commentary argues that academia must embrace CER by insisting on the highest levels of evidence, by viewing all clinical interactions as opportunities for scientific advancement, by setting an example for policy makers and colleagues working in nonacademic settings, and by engaging all physicians in the clinical research enterprise.