Suppr超能文献

近期关于比较效果研究调查的争议:挑战、机遇与陷阱。

Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.

作者信息

Kirpalani Haresh, Truog William E, D'Angio Carl T, Cotten Michael

机构信息

Division of Neonatology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia at University Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA; Emeritus Professor at McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO.

出版信息

Semin Perinatol. 2016 Oct;40(6):341-347. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2016.05.004. Epub 2016 Aug 8.

Abstract

The purpose of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information about which currently available interventions and practices are most effective for patients. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the hallmark of scientific proof, and have been used to compare interventions used in variable ways by different clinicians (comparative effectiveness RCTs, CER-RCTs). But such CER-RCTs have at times generated controversy. Usually the background for the CER-RCT is a range of "standard therapy" or "standard of care." This may have been adopted on observational data alone, or pilot data. At times, such prior data may derive from populations that differ from the population in which the widely variable standard approach is being applied. We believe that controversies related to these CER-RCTs result from confusing "accepted" therapies and "rigorously evaluated therapies." We first define evidence-based medicine and consider how well neonatology conforms to that definition. We then contrast the approach of testing new therapies and those already existing and widely adopted, as in CER-RCTs. We next examine a central challenge in incorporating the control arm within CER-RCTs and aspects of the "titrated" trial. We finally briefly consider some ethical issues that have arisen, and discuss the wide range of neonatology practices that could be tested by CER-RCTs or alternative CER-based strategies that might inform practice. Throughout, we emphasize the lack of awareness of the lay community, and indeed many researchers or commentators, in appreciating the wide variation of standard of care. There is a corresponding need to identify the best uses of available resources that will lead to the best outcomes for our patients. We conclude that CER-RCTs are an essential methodology in modern neonatology to address many unanswered questions and test unproven therapies in newborn care.

摘要

比较效果研究(CER)的目的是通过开发和传播基于证据的信息来改善健康结果,这些信息是关于哪些当前可用的干预措施和做法对患者最有效。随机对照试验(RCT)是科学证据的标志,并已被用于比较不同临床医生以不同方式使用的干预措施(比较效果随机对照试验,CER-RCT)。但此类CER-RCT有时会引发争议。通常,CER-RCT的背景是一系列“标准疗法”或“护理标准”。这可能仅基于观察数据或试点数据采用。有时,此类先前数据可能来自与正在应用广泛可变标准方法的人群不同的人群。我们认为,与这些CER-RCT相关的争议源于混淆了“公认”疗法和“经过严格评估的疗法”。我们首先定义循证医学,并考虑新生儿学在多大程度上符合该定义。然后,我们对比测试新疗法与那些已经存在并被广泛采用的疗法的方法,如在CER-RCT中那样。接下来,我们研究在CER-RCT中纳入对照臂的核心挑战以及“滴定”试验的各个方面。我们最后简要考虑出现的一些伦理问题,并讨论可以通过CER-RCT或可能为实践提供信息的基于CER的替代策略进行测试的广泛新生儿学实践。在整个过程中,我们强调外行人社区,实际上还有许多研究人员或评论员,在认识护理标准的广泛差异方面缺乏认识。相应地,需要确定可用资源的最佳用途,以给我们的患者带来最佳结果。我们得出结论,CER-RCT是现代新生儿学中解决许多未解决问题和测试新生儿护理中未经证实疗法的重要方法。

相似文献

1
Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.
Semin Perinatol. 2016 Oct;40(6):341-347. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2016.05.004. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
2
Ethical pitfalls in neonatal comparative effectiveness trials.
Neonatology. 2014;105(4):350-1. doi: 10.1159/000360650. Epub 2014 May 30.
4
Comparative effectiveness and practice variation in neonatal care.
Clin Perinatol. 2014 Dec;41(4):833-45. doi: 10.1016/j.clp.2014.08.007. Epub 2014 Sep 26.
5
Leveraging observational registries to inform comparative effectiveness research.
Am Heart J. 2010 Jul;160(1):8-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.04.012.
6
The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research.
Clin Trials. 2012 Aug;9(4):436-46. doi: 10.1177/1740774512450097. Epub 2012 Jul 2.
7
Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research.
Am J Med. 2010 Dec;123(12 Suppl 1):e16-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.10.004.
8
The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10.
9
The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research.
Value Health. 2010 Dec;13(8):989-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00786.x.

本文引用的文献

1
Understanding An Informed Public's Views On The Role Of Evidence In Making Health Care Decisions.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):566-74. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1112.
3
Evidence, Quality, and Waste: Solving the Value Equation in Neonatology.
Pediatrics. 2016 Mar;137(3):e20150312. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-0312. Epub 2016 Feb 10.
4
Routinely collected data and comparative effectiveness evidence: promises and limitations.
CMAJ. 2016 May 17;188(8):E158-E164. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150653. Epub 2016 Feb 16.
6
Citizens' Perspectives on Disinvestment from Publicly Funded Pathology Tests: A Deliberative Forum.
Value Health. 2015 Dec;18(8):1050-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.012. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
7
Engaging Underrepresented Minorities in Research: Our Vision for a "Research-Friendly Community".
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2015 Winter;9(4):595-8. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2015.0073.
8
Stakeholder-Driven Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Update From PCORI.
JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314(21):2235-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15139.
9
Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices.
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Nov 3;163(9):725-6. doi: 10.7326/L15-5152-2.
10
When has enough evidence accumulated to change neonatal practice?
Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015 Dec;20(6):424-30. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2015.09.003. Epub 2015 Oct 4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验