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

被引:14
|
作者
French, Jacqueline A. [1 ]
England, John D. [2 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Comprehens Epilepsy Ctr, New York, NY USA
[2] Louisiana State Univ, Dept Neurol, Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Med, New Orleans, LA USA
关键词
ACUTE ISCHEMIC-STROKE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; GUILLAIN-BARRE-SYNDROME; QUALITY STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE; ACADEMY-OF-NEUROLOGY; AMERICAN-ACADEMY; PLASMA-EXCHANGE; PRACTICE PARAMETER; CAROTID STENOSIS; ASPIRIN;
D O I
10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181ec7f56
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
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
引用
收藏
页码:562 / 567
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, AND THE AAN Reply
    French, Jacqueline A.
    England, John D.
    NEUROLOGY, 2011, 76 (10) : 934 - 935
  • [2] Problem Solving in a Polarized Age: Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Politicization of Evidence-Based Medicine
    Gerber, Alan S.
    Patashnik, Eric M.
    FORUM-A JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICS, 2010, 8 (01):
  • [3] Comparative effectiveness research: evidence-based medicine meets health care reform in the USA
    Tanenbaum, Sandra J.
    JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2009, 15 (06) : 976 - 984
  • [4] The AAN response to evidence-based medicine: promise and pitfalls
    Gronseth, Gary S.
    Ashman, Eric
    MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL, 2012, 18 (07) : 949 - 950
  • [5] Article reviewing and Evidence-Based Medicine
    Muszynski, C.
    GYNECOLOGIE OBSTETRIQUE & FERTILITE, 2009, 37 (03): : 288 - 289
  • [6] Combining 'omics and comparative effectiveness research: Evidence-based clinical research decision-making for Chinese medicine
    Witt, Claudia M.
    Liu, Jianping
    Robinson, Nicola
    SCIENCE, 2015, 347 (6219) : S50 - S51
  • [7] Are You Kidding Me? Clinical Comparative Effectiveness or Evidence-Based Medicine
    Kaye, Thomas
    AMERICAN HEALTH AND DRUG BENEFITS, 2009, 2 (03): : 108 - 108
  • [8] Research and Evidence-based Medicine
    Conceicao, Mario J.
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA, 2010, 60 (06): : 565 - 565
  • [9] Review Article: The Flagship of Evidence-Based Medicine
    Lazarides, Miltos K.
    Lazaridou, Irene-Zacharo
    Papanas, Nikolaos
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LOWER EXTREMITY WOUNDS, 2021, 20 (02): : 83 - 87
  • [10] Comparative effectiveness research: Evidence, medicine, and policy
    Mathis, Rick
    HEALTHCARE-THE JOURNAL OF DELIVERY SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, 2014, 2 (01): : 80 - 81