Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Access
  • Cited by 15
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Hall, Richard Whit 2011. Translational Neuroscience.


    Tugwell, Peter Knottnerus, J. André and Idzerda, Leanne 2013. Methods for setting priorities in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, Issue. 5, p. 467.


    Whitmore, Robert G. Schwartz, J. Sanford Simmons, Sydney Stein, Sherman C. and Ghogawala, Zoher 2012. Performing a Cost Analysis in Spine Outcomes Research. Neurosurgery, Vol. 70, Issue. 4, p. 860.


    PAUL, C.L. SANSON-FISHER, R. DOUGLAS, H.E. CLINTON-MCHARG, T. WILLIAMSON, A. and BARKER, D. 2011. Cutting the research pie: a value-weighting approach to explore perceptions about psychosocial research priorities for adults with haematological cancers. European Journal of Cancer Care, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 345.


    Bennett, Wendy L. Robinson, Karen A. Saldanha, Ian J. Wilson, Lisa M. and Nicholson, Wanda K. 2012. High Priority Research Needs for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Women's Health, Vol. 21, Issue. 9, p. 925.


    Rao, Madhu Concannon, Thomas W Iovin, Ramon Yu, Winifred W Chan, Jeffrey A Lypas, Georgios Terasawa, Teruhiko Gaylor, James M Kong, Lina Rausch, Andrew C Lau, Joseph and Kitsios, Georgios D 2013. Identification of topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews in the field of cancer imaging. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 2, Issue. 5, p. 483.


    Raftery, James Young, Amanda Stanton, Louise Milne, Ruairidh Cook, Andrew Turner, David and Davidson, Peter 2015. Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 19, Issue. 11, p. 1.


    Bryant, Jamie Sanson-Fisher, Rob Walsh, Justin and Stewart, Jessica 2014. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, Vol. 12, Issue. 1, p. 23.


    Greenberg, Caprice C Wind, Jennifer K Chang, George J Chen, Ronald C and Schrag, Deborah 2013. Stakeholder engagement for comparative effectiveness research in cancer care: experience of the DEcIDE Cancer Consortium. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 2, Issue. 2, p. 117.


    Gold, Rachel Whitlock, Evelyn P. Patnode, Carrie D. McGinnis, Paul S. Buckley, David I. and Morris, Cynthia 2013. Prioritizing research needs based on a systematic evidence review: a pilot process for engaging stakeholders. Health Expectations, Vol. 16, Issue. 4, p. 338.


    Klein, Gregory Gold, Laura S Sullivan, Sean D Buist, Diana SM Ramsey, Scott Kreizenbeck, Karma Snell, Kyle Loggers, Elizabeth Trice Gifford, Joseph Watkins, John B and Kessler, Larry 2012. Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 1, Issue. 3, p. 241.


    Cox, Jennifer Halkett, Georgia Anderson, Claudia and Heard, Robert 2011. Australian radiation therapists rank technology-related research as most important to radiation therapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, Vol. 10, Issue. 04, p. 228.


    Saldanha, Ian J. Wilson, Lisa M. Bennett, Wendy L. Nicholson, Wanda K. and Robinson, Karen A. 2013. Development and pilot test of a process to identify research needs from a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, Issue. 5, p. 538.


    Ghogawala, Zoher Whitmore, Robert G. Watters, William C. Sharan, Alok Mummaneni, Praveen V. Dailey, Andrew T. Choudhri, Tanvir F. Eck, Jason C. Groff, Michael W. Wang, Jeffrey C. Resnick, Daniel K. Dhall, Sanjay S. and Kaiser, Michael G. 2014. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: Assessment of economic outcome. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 14.


    Fischer, Michael A Allen-Coleman, Cora Farrell, Stephen F and Schneeweiss, Sebastian 2015. Stakeholder assessment of comparative effectiveness research needs for Medicaid populations. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 4, Issue. 5, p. 465.


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 25, Issue 3
  • July 2009, pp. 241-248

Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making

  • Kalipso Chalkidou (a1), Danielle Whicher (a2), Weslie Kary (a3) and Sean Tunis (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990225
  • Published online: 01 July 2009
Abstract

Background: In the debate on improving the quality and efficiency of the United States healthcare system, comparative effectiveness research is increasingly seen as a tool for reducing costs without compromising outcomes. Furthermore, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act explicitly describes a prioritization function for establishing a comparative effectiveness research agenda. However, how such a function, in terms of methods and process, would go about identifying the most important priorities warranting further research has received little attention.

Objectives: This study describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded pilot project to translate one current comparative effectiveness review into a prioritized list of evidence gaps and research questions reflecting the views of the healthcare decision makers involved in the pilot.

Methods: To create a prioritized research agenda, we developed an interactive nominal group process that relied on a multistakeholder workgroup scoring a list of research questions on the management of coronary artery disease.

Results: According to the group, the areas of greatest uncertainty regarding the management of coronary artery disease are the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary interventions versus coronary artery bypass grafting for different patient subgroups; the impact of diagnostic testing; and the most effective method of developing performance measures for providers.

Conclusions: By applying our nominal group process, we were able to create a list of research priorities for healthcare decision makers. Future research should focus on refining this process because determining research priorities is essential to the success of developing an infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making
      Your Kindle email address
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparative effectiveness research priorities: Identifying critical gaps in evidence for clinical and health policy decision making
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

4.N Black . A national strategy for research and development: Lessons from England. Ann Rev Public Health. 1997;18:484505.

5.DM Bravata , AL Gienger , KM McDonald , Systematic review: The comparative Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:703716.

6.J Chilcott , A Brennan , A Booth , The role of modeling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:235251.

17.G Rowe , G Wright , F Bolger . Delphi: A reevaluation of research and theory. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1991;39:235251.

21.AH Van de Ven , AL Delbecq . Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision-making effectiveness. Acad Manage J. 1971;14:203212.

22.EJ Velasquez , KL Lee , CM O'Conner , . The rationale and design of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:15401547.

23.K Vella , C Goldfrad , K Rowan , J Bion , N Black . Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320:976980.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Chalkidou Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 3.doc

 Unknown (37 KB)
37 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Chalkidou Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 2.doc

 Unknown (32 KB)
32 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Chalkidou Supplementary Material
Supplementary Material 1.doc

 Unknown (36 KB)
36 KB