ArticleHealth affairs (Project Hope)2011
How comparative effectiveness research can help advance 'personalized medicine' in cancer treatment.
Article in Health affairs (Project Hope), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Pooled it
- The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007).Contemporary clinical trials · 2012Trial
- How Big Data, Comparative Effectiveness Research, and Rapid-Learning Health-Care Systems Can Transform Patient Care in Radiation Oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
- Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Review
- Cost Implications of Value-Based Pricing for Companion Diagnostic Tests in Precision Medicine.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Article
- Article
- Comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics and precision medicine: current landscape and future prospects.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2013Article
- Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2013Article
- Comparative effectiveness research, genomics-enabled personalized medicine, and rapid learning health care: a common bond.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012Review
- Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment.BMC research notes · 2012Article
- Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2012Article
- Preserving Institutional Privacy in Distributed binary Logistic Regression.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of biomarkers to "personalize" cancer treatment--identifying discrete genes, proteins, or other indicators that can differentiate one type of cancer from another and enable the use of highly tailored therapies--offers tremendous potential for improved outcomes and lower treatment costs. However, the rapid development of cancer biomarker, or genomic, tests--combined with a paucity of evidence to support the effectiveness of the tests--presents a challenge for patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. In this article we propose that comparative effectiveness research be used to strengthen what is now a haphazard process for developing and marketing cancer biomarker tests. We suggest novel funding approaches and a systematic process for moving from regulatory approval to the generation of evidence that meets the needs of stakeholders and, ultimately, 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.