Why Observational Studies Should Be Among The Tools Used In Comparative Effectiveness Research

被引：144

作者：

Dreyer, Nancy A. ^{[1
]}

Tunis, Sean R. ^{[4
]}

Berger, Marc ^{[2
]}

Ollendorf, Dan ^{[3
]}

Mattox, Pattra

Gliklich, Richard

机构：

[1] Outcome Sci, Cambridge, MA USA

[2] Eli Lilly & Co, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA

[3] Inst Clin & Econ Review, Boston, MA USA

[4] Ctr Med Technol Policy, Baltimore, MD USA

来源：

HEALTH AFFAIRS | 2010年 / 29卷 / 10期

关键词：

SECONDARY DATA SOURCES; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS; DRUG-ELUTING STENTS; THROMBOSIS; OUTCOMES; ASSOCIATION; IMPROVE; BIAS;

D O I：

10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0666

中图分类号：

R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Doctors, patients, and other decision makers need access to the best available clinical evidence, which can come from systematic reviews, experimental trials, and observational research. Despite methodological challenges, high-quality observational studies have an important role in comparative effectiveness research because they can address issues that are otherwise difficult or impossible to study. In addition, many clinical and policy decisions do not require the very high levels of certainty provided by large, rigorous randomized trials. This paper provides insights and a framework to guide good decision making that involves the full range of high-quality comparative effectiveness research techniques, including observational research.

引用

页码：1818 / 1825

页数：8

共 33 条

[1]

[Anonymous], 2009, IN NAT PRIOR COMP EF, DOI DOI 10.17226/12648

[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 [J].