Can statistical linkage of missing variables reduce bias in treatment effect estimates in comparative effectiveness research studies?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 455-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Crown ◽  
Jessica Chang ◽  
Melvin Olson ◽  
Kristijan Kahler ◽  
Jason Swindle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Missing Variables ◽  
Research Studies

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness Research: Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to Synthesize Empirical Evidence

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C. Katapodi ◽  
Laurel L. Northouse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Research Studies

The increased demand for evidence-based health care practices calls for comparative effectiveness research (CER), namely the generation and synthesis of research evidence to compare the benefits and harms of alternative methods of care. A significant contribution of CER is the systematic identification and synthesis of available research studies on a specific topic. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodological issues pertaining to systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be used by investigators with the purpose of conducting CER. A systematic review or meta-analysis is guided by a research protocol, which includes (a) the research question, (b) inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to the target population and studies, © guidelines for obtaining relevant studies, (d) methods for data extraction and coding, (e) methods for data synthesis, and (f ) guidelines for reporting results and assessing for bias. This article presents an algorithm for generating evidence-based knowledge by systematically identifying, retrieving, and synthesizing large bodies of research studies. Recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence, interpreting findings, and discussing clinical applicability are offered.

scholarly journals Facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment into a large comparative effectiveness trial: a qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 815-826
Author(s):  
Stephanie Behringer-Massera ◽  
Terysia Browne ◽  
Geny George ◽  
Sally Duran ◽  
Andrea Cherrington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Perceptions Of Risk ◽  
Telephone Interviews ◽  
Successful Recruitment ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers ◽  
Research Studies

Background: Recruitment of participants into research studies, especially individuals from minority groups, is challenging; lack of diversity may lead to biased findings. Aim: To explore beliefs about research participation among individuals who were approached and eligible for the GRADE study. Methods: In-depth qualitative telephone interviews with randomized participants (n = 25) and eligible individuals who declined to enroll (n = 26). Results: Refusers and consenters differed in trust and perceptions of risk, benefits and burden of participation. Few participants understood how comparative effectiveness research differed from other types of trials; however, some features of comparative effectiveness research were perceived as lower risk. Conclusion: We identified facilitators and addressable barriers to participation in research studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document