Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr:84:185-187.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.011. Epub 2017 Feb 8.

Publication of comparative effectiveness research has not increased in high-impact medical journals, 2004-2013

Laura L Hester  1 , Charles Poole  2 , Elizabeth A Suarez  2 , Jane S Der  2 , Olivia G Anderson  2 , Kathryn G Almon  2 , Avanti V Shirke  2 , M Alan Brookhart  2
Affiliations

Publication of comparative effectiveness research has not increased in high-impact medical journals, 2004-2013

Laura L Hester et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the impact of increasing interest and investment in patient-centered research, this study sought to describe patterns of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pharmacologic intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013.

Design and setting: We identified 2335 articles published in five widely read medical journals from 2004-2013 with ≥1 intervention meeting the US Food and Drug Administration's definitions for a drug, biologic, or vaccine. Six trained reviewers extracted characteristics from a 20% random sample of articles (468 studies). We calculated the proportion of studies with CER and PROs. Trends were summarized using locally-weighted means and 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Of the 468 sampled studies, 30% used CER designs and 33% assessed PROs. The proportion of studies using CER designs did not meaningfully increase over the study period. However, we observed an increase in the use of PROs.

Conclusions: Among pharmacological intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013, we identified no increase in CER. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials continue to be the dominant study design for assessing pharmacologic interventions. Increasing trends in PRO use may indicate greater acceptance of these outcomes as evidence for clinical benefit.

Keywords: Affordable Care Act (ACA); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA); Comparative effectiveness research; Patient Protection; Patient-reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: M.A.B. has received funding from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. All other authors have no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Trends in the percentage of studies on pharmacologic interventions published in high-impact medical journals from 2004-2013 using comparative effectiveness research (top) and patient-reported outcomes (bottom). Blue shading represents 95% confidence bands.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Frank L, Basch E, Selby JV for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1513–1514. - PubMed
    1. Sox HC, Greenfield S. Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Internal Med. 2009;151(3):203–205. - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, District of Columbia: National Academies Press; 2009.
    1. Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute (PCORI) [October 17, 2016];Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 2012 Accessed at: http://www.pcori.org/research-results/patient-centered-outcomes-research.
    1. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Pub L No 111-5, 123, Stat 115, 516. 2009 Feb 19;

MeSH terms