ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2012
What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities.
Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnosis and treatment for hyperuricemia and gout: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness of interventions for reducing TB incidence in countries with low TB incidence: a systematic review of reviews.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019Pooled it
- Impact of placebo arms on outcomes in antidepressant trials: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.International journal of epidemiology · 2018Pooled it
- Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Topical medication instillation techniques for glaucoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Pooled it
- Advancing evidence-informed policy: outcomes of the global research agenda on knowledge translation.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Research priorities for advanced HIV disease in Latin America and the Caribbean region: a modified Delphi study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Recommendations for the use of biomarkers for the management of adults with sepsis: a scoping review and critical appraisal.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Missing data matter: an empirical evaluation of the impacts of missing EHR data in comparative effectiveness research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.The ocular surface · 2023Article
- Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- From clinical practice guideline development to trial registration: A systematic investigation of research pipeline for inflammatory bowel disease.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye.Eye (London, England) · 2019Review
- Evaluation of Clinical Questions and Patient-Important Outcomes Associated With the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration.JAMA ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The authors developed and tested a framework for identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combination of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. In phase 1 of the project, reported elsewhere, 45 clinical questions on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma were derived from practice guidelines and prioritized by using a 2-round Delphi survey of clinicians. On the basis of the clinicians' responses, 9 questions were classified as high-priority. In phase 2, reported here, systematic reviews that addressed the 45 clinical questions were identified. The reviews were classified as at low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and evidence gaps (in which no systematic review was at low risk of bias) were identified. The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: Two of the 9 high-priority questions require new primary research (such as a randomized, controlled trial) and 4 require a new systematic review. The utility and limitations of the framework and future adaptations are discussed.
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.