4.7 Review

Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research

期刊

CANCER
卷 118, 期 21, 页码 5186-5197

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27552

关键词

comparative effectiveness research; research methods; retrospective data; data standardization; Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions About Effectiveness (DEcIDE)

类别

资金

  1. AHRQ through the Cancer DEcIDE Comparative Effectiveness Research Consortium [HHSA290-205-0040-I-TO4-WA5]
  2. NCI [P01 CA142538]
  3. US. National Institutes of Health
  4. US. AHRQ
  5. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  6. Pfizer
  7. Eli Lilly
  8. Bristol Meyers Squibb
  9. Helsinn Therapeutics
  10. Amgen
  11. Kanglaite
  12. Alexion
  13. Biovex
  14. DARA Therapeutics
  15. Novartis
  16. Mi-Co
  17. National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health [RO1 AG023178]
  18. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  19. UNC Center of Excellence in Pharmacoepidemiology and Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can efficiently and rapidly generate new scientific evidence and address knowledge gaps, reduce clinical uncertainty, and guide health care choices. Much of the potential in CER is driven by the application of novel methods to analyze existing data. Despite its potential, several challenges must be identified and overcome so that CER may be improved, accelerated, and expeditiously implemented into the broad spectrum of cancer care and clinical practice. To identify and characterize the challenges to cancer CER, the authors reviewed the literature and conducted semistructured interviews with 41 cancer CER researchers at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) Cancer CER Consortium. Several data sets for cancer CER were identified and differentiated into an ontology of 8 categories and were characterized in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and utility. Several themes emerged during the development of this ontology and discussions with CER researchers. Dominant among them was accelerating cancer CER and promoting the acceptance of findings, which will necessitate transcending disciplinary silos to incorporate diverse perspectives and expertise. Multidisciplinary collaboration is required, including those with expertise in nonexperimental data, statistics, outcomes research, clinical trials, epidemiology, generalist and specialty medicine, survivorship, informatics, data, and methods, among others. Recommendations highlight the systematic, collaborative identification of critical measures; application of more rigorous study design and sampling methods; policy-level resolution of issues in data ownership, governance, access, and cost; and development and application of consistent standards for data security, privacy, and confidentiality. Cancer 2012. (c) 2012 American Cancer Society.

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