207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21351858)
1. Comparative effectiveness research: guidelines for good practices are just the beginning.
Johnson ML; Chitnis AS
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2011 Feb; 11(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 21351858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part I.
Berger ML; Mamdani M; Atkins D; Johnson ML
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1044-52. PubMed ID: 19793072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II.
Cox E; Martin BC; Van Staa T; Garbe E; Siebert U; Johnson ML
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1053-61. PubMed ID: 19744292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part III.
Johnson ML; Crown W; Martin BC; Dormuth CR; Siebert U
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1062-73. PubMed ID: 19793071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report.
Berger ML; Dreyer N; Anderson F; Towse A; Sedrakyan A; Normand SL
Value Health; 2012; 15(2):217-30. PubMed ID: 22433752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Good Practices for Real-World Data Studies of Treatment and/or Comparative Effectiveness: Recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making.
Berger ML; Sox H; Willke RJ; Brixner DL; Eichler HG; Goettsch W; Madigan D; Makady A; Schneeweiss S; Tarricone R; Wang SV; Watkins J; Mullins CD
Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1003-1008. PubMed ID: 28964430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report.
Ramsey S; Willke R; Briggs A; Brown R; Buxton M; Chawla A; Cook J; Glick H; Liljas B; Petitti D; Reed S
Value Health; 2005; 8(5):521-33. PubMed ID: 16176491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Methodological challenges of comparative effectiveness research in pain: implications for investigators, clinicians, and policy makers.
Bellows BK; Biskupiak J
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother; 2011; 25(3):267-74. PubMed ID: 21882980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2.
Hoaglin DC; Hawkins N; Jansen JP; Scott DA; Itzler R; Cappelleri JC; Boersma C; Thompson D; Larholt KM; Diaz M; Barrett A
Value Health; 2011 Jun; 14(4):429-37. PubMed ID: 21669367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--1.
Caro JJ; Briggs AH; Siebert U; Kuntz KM;
Value Health; 2012; 15(6):796-803. PubMed ID: 22999128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. GRACE principles: recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness.
Dreyer NA; Schneeweiss S; McNeil BJ; Berger ML; Walker AM; Ollendorf DA; Gliklich RE;
Am J Manag Care; 2010 Jun; 16(6):467-71. PubMed ID: 20560690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Creating a high-performance system for comparative effectiveness research.
Etheredge LM
Health Aff (Millwood); 2010 Oct; 29(10):1761-7. PubMed ID: 20921473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program.
Tsertsvadze A; Maglione M; Chou R; Garritty C; Coleman C; Lux L; Bass E; Balshem H; Moher D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Nov; 64(11):1208-15. PubMed ID: 21684114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Overview of best practices in conducting comparative-effectiveness reviews.
Guise JM; Viswanathan M
Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2011 Dec; 90(6):876-82. PubMed ID: 22048219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Methodological issues in comparative effectiveness research: clinical trials.
Peduzzi P; Kyriakides T; O'Connor TZ; Guarino P; Warren SR; Huang GD
Am J Med; 2010 Dec; 123(12 Suppl 1):e8-15. PubMed ID: 21184867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. On guidelines for comparative effectiveness research using nonrandomized studies in secondary data sources.
Schneeweiss S
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1041. PubMed ID: 19744290
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Invited article: comparative effectiveness research, evidence-based medicine, and the AAN.
French JA; England JD
Neurology; 2010 Aug; 75(6):562-7. PubMed ID: 20697109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Scientific and organizational collaboration in comparative effectiveness research: the VA cooperative studies program model.
Huang GD; Ferguson RE; Peduzzi PN; O'Leary TJ
Am J Med; 2010 Dec; 123(12 Suppl 1):e24-31. PubMed ID: 21184863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Designing quality health services research: why comparative effectiveness studies are needed and why pharmacists should be involved.
Carter BL
Pharmacotherapy; 2010 Aug; 30(8):751-7. PubMed ID: 20653349
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
