Publication patterns of comparative effectiveness research in spine neurosurgery

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. E9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dueng-Yuan Hueng ◽  
Chia-Lin Tsai ◽  
Shih-Wei Hsu ◽  
Hsin-I Ma
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Key Words Cost Analysis ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Number Of Publications

Object The purpose of this study was to investigate publication patterns for comparative effectiveness research (CER) on spine neurosurgery. Methods The authors searched the PubMed database for the period 1980–2012 using the key words “cost analysis,” “utility analysis,” “cost-utility,” “outcomes research,” “practical clinical research,” “comparator trial,” and “comparative effectiveness research,” linked with “effectiveness” and “spine neurosurgery.” Results From 1980 through April 9, 2012, neurosurgery CER publications accounted for 1.38% of worldwide CER publications (8657 of 626,330 articles). Spine neurosurgery CER accounted for only 0.02%, with 132 articles. The journal with the greatest number of publications on spine neurosurgery CER was Spine, followed by the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. The average annual publication rate for spine neurosurgery CER during this period was 4 articles (132 articles in 33 years), with 68 (51.52%) of the 132 articles being published within the past 5 years and a rising trend beginning in 2008. The top 3 contributing countries were the US, Turkey, and Japan, with 68, 8, and 7 articles, respectively. Only 8 regular articles (6.06%) focused on cost analysis. Conclusions There is a paucity of publications using CER methodology in spine neurosurgery. Few articles address the issue of cost analysis. The promotion of continuing medical education in CER methodology is warranted. Further investigations to address cost analysis in comparative effectiveness studies of spine neurosurgery are crucial to expand the application of CER in public health.

scholarly journals Training in patient-centered outcomes research for specific researcher communities

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 278-284
Author(s):  
Douglas P. Landsittel ◽  
Larry Kessler ◽  
Christopher H. Schmid ◽  
Paul Marantz ◽  
Maria E. Suarez-Almazor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Outcomes Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Experiential Training ◽  
Number Of Publications

A number of publications have discussed approaches to training the scientific workforce in comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR). To meet this need, funders have offered resources for developing educational materials and establishing training programs. To extend these efforts into specific researcher communities, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed an R25 Funding Opportunity Announcement that called for basic, advanced, and experiential training for a specific researcher community in collaboration with associated program partners. This paper describes the strategies developed by the 5 subsequently funded programs, their specific researcher communities and program partners, and the challenges associated with developing in-person and online programs. We focus on lessons learned that can be translated into developing training programs nationwide and on training for the special populations of interest. We also discuss the creation of a sustainable network for training and the conduct of comparative effectiveness research/patient-centered outcomes research in targeted communities.

scholarly journals Publication of Tumor Marker Research Results: The Necessity for Complete and Transparent Reporting

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34) ◽  
pp. 4223-4232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. McShane ◽  
Daniel F. Hayes
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Marker ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
The Body ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Transparent Reporting

Clinical management decisions for patients with cancer are increasingly being guided by prognostic and predictive markers. Use of these markers should be based on a sufficiently comprehensive body of unbiased evidence to establish that benefits to patients outweigh harms and to justify expenditure of health care dollars. Careful assessments of the clinical utility of markers by using comparative effectiveness research methods are urgently needed to more rigorously summarize and evaluate the evidence, but multiple factors have made such assessments difficult. The literature on tumor markers is plagued by nonpublication bias, selective reporting, and incomplete reporting. Several measures to address these problems are discussed, including development of a tumor marker study registry, greater attention to assay analytic performance and specimen quality, use of more rigorous study designs and analysis plans to establish clinical utility, and adherence to higher standards for reporting tumor marker studies. More complete and transparent reporting by adhering to criteria such as BRISQ [Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality] criteria for reporting details about specimens and REMARK [Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies] criteria for reporting a multitude of aspects relating to study design, analysis, and results, is essential for reliable assessment of study quality, detection of potential biases, and proper interpretation of study findings. Adopting these measures will improve the quality of the body of evidence available for comparative effectiveness research and enhance the ability to establish the clinical utility of prognostic and predictive tumor markers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document