ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2009
Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers.
Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Early technology review: towards an expedited pathway.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Review
- International comparison of comparative effectiveness research in five jurisdictions: insights for the US.PharmacoEconomics · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextComparative effectiveness research is increasingly being recognized as a method to link research with the information needs of decision makers. As the United States begins to invest in comparative effectiveness, it would be wise to look at other functioning research networks to understand the infrastructure and funding required to support them.
methodsThis case study looks at the comparative effectiveness research network in Ontario, Canada, for which a neutral coordinating committee is responsible for prioritizing topics, assessing evidence, providing recommendations on coverage decisions, and determining pertinent research questions for further evaluation. This committee is supported by the Medical Advisory Secretariat and several large research institutions. This article analyzes the infrastructure and cost needed to support this network and offers recommendations for developing policies and methodologies to support comparative effectiveness research in the United States.
findingsThe research network in place in Ontario explicitly links decision making with evidence generation, in a transparent, timely, and efficient way. Funding is provided by the Ontario government through a reliable and stable funding mechanism that helps ensure that the studies it supports are relevant to decision makers.
conclusionsWith the recent allocation of funds to support comparative effectiveness research from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States should begin to construct an infrastructure that applies these features to make sure that evidence generated from this effort positively affects the quality of health care delivered to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.