Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice.
Clinical care
Comparative effectiveness
Embed
High-quality evidence
Pragmatic
Trials
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Sep 2021
15 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
13
05
2021
accepted:
24
08
2021
entrez:
16
9
2021
pubmed:
17
9
2021
medline:
18
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment.This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34526083
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05566-1
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05566-1
pmc: PMC8442385
doi:
Types de publication
Letter
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
620Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 3;366(18):1659-61
pubmed: 22551126
Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 14;40(15):1236-1240
pubmed: 29688309
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2015 Mar 10;3(1):1122
pubmed: 25992388
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2395-2400
pubmed: 27974039
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016 Aug 10;4(3):1233
pubmed: 27683668
Med J Aust. 2021 Feb;214(2):62-65.e1
pubmed: 33429459
Learn Health Syst. 2017 Nov 02;2(1):e10044
pubmed: 31245573
JAMA. 2020 May 19;323(19):1895-1896
pubmed: 32227198