Comments on Lauer's ‘How the debate about comparative effectiveness research should impact the future of clinical trials’

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (25) ◽  
pp. 3060-3061
Author(s):  
Miguel A. Hernán
2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Patrick ◽  
Laura Wolszon ◽  
Karen M Basen-Engquist ◽  
Wendy Demark-Wahnefried ◽  
Alex V Prokhorov ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edie E. Zusman

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the basis for some of the fiercest rhetoric of the current political era. While it is a relatively old and previously academic pursuit, CER may well become the foundation upon which the future of health care in the US is based. The actual impact of CER on—and uptake among—doctors, patients, hospitals, and health insurers, however, remains to be seen. Political considerations and compromises have led to the removal of key aspects of CER implementation from policy legislation to prevent alienating stakeholders critical to the success of health care reform. Health care providers, including specialists such as neurosurgeons, will need to understand both the policies and political implications of CER as its practices becomes an indelible part of the future health care landscape.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (3S) ◽  
pp. 28s-33s ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. Lowry ◽  
Elizabeth T. Loggers ◽  
Erin J.A. Bowles ◽  
Edward H. Wagner

Comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials are valued methods to address the limitations of traditional randomized trials, answer questions of cost-effectiveness or noninferiority, and inform data-driven dialogue and decision making by stakeholders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document