1964 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22074667)
1. It is important to note that RWD will never replace the more traditional and more robust RCT data; however, the emerging trend is to incorporate data that are more generalizable. Introduction.
Mullins CD; Sanchez RJ
J Manag Care Pharm; 2011; 17(9 Suppl A):S03-4. PubMed ID: 22074667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on interventional pain management: evolution from Medicare Modernization Act to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Manchikanti L; Falco FJ; Benyamin RM; Helm S; Parr AT; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2011; 14(3):E249-82. PubMed ID: 21587337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy.
Ahmed S; Berzon RA; Revicki DA; Lenderking WR; Moinpour CM; Basch E; Reeve BB; Wu AW;
Med Care; 2012 Dec; 50(12):1060-70. PubMed ID: 22922434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research.
Berlin JA; Cepeda MS
Clin Trials; 2012 Feb; 9(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 22049086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Can CER be an effective tool for change in the development and assessment of new drugs and technologies?
Brixner DI; Watkins JB
J Manag Care Pharm; 2012 Jun; 18(5 Supp A):S06-11. PubMed ID: 22663293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The project data sphere initiative: accelerating cancer research by sharing data.
Green AK; Reeder-Hayes KE; Corty RW; Basch E; Milowsky MI; Dusetzina SB; Bennett AV; Wood WA
Oncologist; 2015 May; 20(5):464-e20. PubMed ID: 25876994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research.
Chalkidou K; Tunis S; Whicher D; Fowler R; Zwarenstein M
Clin Trials; 2012 Aug; 9(4):436-46. PubMed ID: 22752634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research.
Concato J; Lawler EV; Lew RA; Gaziano JM; Aslan M; Huang GD
Am J Med; 2010 Dec; 123(12 Suppl 1):e16-23. PubMed ID: 21184862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparative Effectiveness Research Through a Collaborative Electronic Reporting Consortium.
Fiks AG; Grundmeier RW; Steffes J; Adams WG; Kaelber DC; Pace WD; Wasserman RC;
Pediatrics; 2015 Jul; 136(1):e215-24. PubMed ID: 26101357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The methods of comparative effectiveness research.
Sox HC; Goodman SN
Annu Rev Public Health; 2012 Apr; 33():425-45. PubMed ID: 22224891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?
Allen D; Rixson L
Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110. PubMed ID: 21631815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure.
Tunis SR; Benner J; McClellan M
Stat Med; 2010 Aug; 29(19):1963-76. PubMed ID: 20564311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
American Society of Clinical Oncology
J Clin Oncol; 2003 Jun; 21(12):2377-86. PubMed ID: 12721281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A tall order on a tight timeframe: stakeholder perspectives on comparative effectiveness research using electronic clinical data.
Holve E; Lopez MH; Scott L; Segal C
J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Sep; 1(5):441-51. PubMed ID: 24236421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A framework for assessing the value of diagnostic imaging in the era of comparative effectiveness research.
Gazelle GS; Kessler L; Lee DW; McGinn T; Menzin J; Neumann PJ; van Amerongen D; White LA;
Radiology; 2011 Dec; 261(3):692-8. PubMed ID: 22095993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
