4.7 Article

Invited Article: Comparative effectiveness research, evidence-based medicine, and the AAN

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 562-567

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181ec7f56

关键词

-

资金

  1. UCB
  2. Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Inc.
  3. Eisai Inc.
  4. Johnson Johnson
  5. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Epilepsy Therapy Development Project
  8. FACES
  9. SK Bio-Pharmaceuticals
  10. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
  11. Pfizer Inc.
  12. Merck Serono
  13. NIH [R01 NS053998-01A1]
  14. Epilepsy Research Foundation
  15. AstraZeneca
  16. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the study of the relative effects of treatments to determine which will be most likely to improve overall health for a specific condition. This area has received a great deal of political focus, and substantial funding for CER is included in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. The results of CER are intended to inform evidence-based guidelines and to improve the quality and effectiveness of medical care. In the absence of such research, guidelines often depend on consensus to rank available therapies. We believe that an increase in CER would clearly enhance evidence-based guidelines. However, the research must be performed and analyzed with great care to avoid reaching unhelpful, or even harmful, conclusions. Specifically, individual patient characteristics must be taken into account, study endpoints must approximate the most important patient outcomes, therapies must be used optimally within the studies, and the most relevant therapies for a given indication must be included for comparison. CER that is not performed or interpreted correctly could have the potential to affect negatively our choices of therapies. The neurology community must help inform the process of CER to ensure the highest-quality research, which in turn will result in the most valid outcomes. Neurology (R) 2010; 75: 562-567

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据