ArticleMedical care2012
Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN Experience.
Article in Medical care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Integrating value of research into NCI Clinical Trials Cooperative Group research review and prioritization: A pilot study.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
- Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: A landscape analysis of reviews.Translational behavioral medicine · 2018Review
- 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
- Querying stakeholders to inform comparative effectiveness research.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2017Article
- Offering prenatal diagnostic tests: European guidelines for clinical practice [corrected].European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2014Article
- 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
- Getting our priorities straight: a novel framework for stakeholder-informed prioritization of cancer genomics research.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2013Article
- Household Air Pollution and CVD: Identifying Best Directions for Research.Global heart · 2012Article
- Facilitating comparative effectiveness research in cancer genomics: evaluating stakeholder perceptions of the engagement process.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2012Article
- Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research for cancer diagnostics using a regional stakeholder approach.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2012Article
- Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 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
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic approaches to stakeholder-informed research prioritization are a central focus of comparative effectiveness research. Genomic testing in cancer is an ideal area to refine such approaches given rapid innovation and potentially significant impacts on patient outcomes.
objectiveTo develop and pilot test a stakeholder-informed approach to prioritizing genomic tests for future study in collaboration with the cancer clinical trials consortium SWOG.
methodsWe conducted a landscape analysis to identify genomic tests in oncology using a systematic search of published and unpublished studies, and expert consultation. Clinically valid tests suitable for evaluation in a comparative study were presented to an external stakeholder group. Domains to guide the prioritization process were identified with stakeholder input, and stakeholders ranked tests using multiple voting rounds.
resultsA stakeholder group was created including representatives from patient-advocacy groups, payers, test developers, regulators, policy makers, and community-based oncologists. We identified 9 domains for research prioritization with stakeholder feedback: population impact; current standard of care, strength of association; potential clinical benefits, potential clinical harms, economic impacts, evidence of need, trial feasibility, and market factors. The landscape analysis identified 635 studies; of 9 tests deemed to have sufficient clinical validity, 6 were presented to stakeholders. Two tests in lung cancer (ERCC1 and EGFR) and 1 test in breast cancer (CEA/CA15-3/CA27.29) were identified as top research priorities.
conclusionsUse of a diverse stakeholder group to inform research prioritization is feasible in a pragmatic and timely manner. Additional research is needed to optimize search strategies, stakeholder group composition, and integration with existing prioritization mechanisms.
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.