A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research

Mark Helfand, Sean Tunis, Evelyn P. Whitlock, Stephen G. Pauker, Anirban Basu, Jon Chilingerian, Frank E. Harrell, David O. Meltzer, Victor Manuel Montori, Donald S. Shepard, David M. Kent

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)188-198
Number of pages11
JournalClinical and Translational Science
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Patient Outcome Assessment
Research
Translational Medical Research
Patient Preference
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Research Design
Research Personnel
Organizations
Health

Keywords

  • Clinical research methods
  • Comparative effectiveness
  • Patient-centered outcomes research
  • Translational science

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

Helfand, M., Tunis, S., Whitlock, E. P., Pauker, S. G., Basu, A., Chilingerian, J., ... Kent, D. M. (2011). A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(3), 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x

A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. / Helfand, Mark; Tunis, Sean; Whitlock, Evelyn P.; Pauker, Stephen G.; Basu, Anirban; Chilingerian, Jon; Harrell, Frank E.; Meltzer, David O.; Montori, Victor Manuel; Shepard, Donald S.; Kent, David M.

In: Clinical and Translational Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, 06.2011, p. 188-198.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Helfand, M, Tunis, S, Whitlock, EP, Pauker, SG, Basu, A, Chilingerian, J, Harrell, FE, Meltzer, DO, Montori, VM, Shepard, DS & Kent, DM 2011, 'A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research', Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 188-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x
Helfand, Mark ; Tunis, Sean ; Whitlock, Evelyn P. ; Pauker, Stephen G. ; Basu, Anirban ; Chilingerian, Jon ; Harrell, Frank E. ; Meltzer, David O. ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Shepard, Donald S. ; Kent, David M. / A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. In: Clinical and Translational Science. 2011 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 188-198.
@article{3bf13760fbb846e5b9d66c8a9eecdd09,
title = "A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research",
abstract = "Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.",
keywords = "Clinical research methods, Comparative effectiveness, Patient-centered outcomes research, Translational science",
author = "Mark Helfand and Sean Tunis and Whitlock, {Evelyn P.} and Pauker, {Stephen G.} and Anirban Basu and Jon Chilingerian and Harrell, {Frank E.} and Meltzer, {David O.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Shepard, {Donald S.} and Kent, {David M.}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "188--198",
journal = "Clinical and Translational Science",
issn = "1752-8054",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research

AU - Helfand, Mark

AU - Tunis, Sean

AU - Whitlock, Evelyn P.

AU - Pauker, Stephen G.

AU - Basu, Anirban

AU - Chilingerian, Jon

AU - Harrell, Frank E.

AU - Meltzer, David O.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Shepard, Donald S.

AU - Kent, David M.

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.

AB - Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies and linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.

KW - Clinical research methods

KW - Comparative effectiveness

KW - Patient-centered outcomes research

KW - Translational science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959728798&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959728798&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 188

EP - 198

JO - Clinical and Translational Science

JF - Clinical and Translational Science

SN - 1752-8054

IS - 3

ER -