ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2012
A framework for understanding cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative effectiveness of mitoxantrone plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel failure.The oncologist · 2015Trial
- On the use of natural language processing to implement the target trial framework using unstructured data from the electronic health record.Global epidemiology · 2025Article
- Data-Adaptive Estimation for Double-Robust Methods in Population-Based Cancer Epidemiology: Risk Differences for Lung Cancer Mortality by Emergency Presentation.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Integration of Massage Therapy in Outpatient Cancer Care.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2018Article
- Parent, patient and clinician perceptions of outcomes during and following neonatal care: a systematic review of qualitative research.BMJ paediatrics open · 2018Article
- Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with rectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Trials · 2017Review
- Next steps to improve disparities in lung cancer treatment clinical trial enrollment.Annals of translational medicine · 2017Article
- The Cancer Research Network: a platform for epidemiologic and health services research on cancer prevention, care, and outcomes in large, stable populations.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2016Article
- A data-driven concept schema for defining clinical research data needs.International journal of medical informatics · 2016Article
- Facilitating biomedical researchers' interrogation of electronic health record data: Ideas from outside of biomedical informatics.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Review
- Differential receipt of sentinel lymph node biopsy within practice-based research networks.Medical care · 2013Article
- Comparing cancer care, outcomes, and costs across health systems: charting the course.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2013Article
- Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research: past, present, and future potential.Cancer · 2012Review
- Big data for population-based cancer research: the integrated cancer information and surveillance system.North Carolina medical journalArticle
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
Abstract
objectivesRandomized controlled trials remain the gold standard for evaluating cancer intervention efficacy. Randomized trials are not always feasible, practical, or timely and often don't adequately reflect patient heterogeneity and real-world clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research can leverage secondary data to help fill knowledge gaps randomized trials leave unaddressed; however, comparative effectiveness research also faces shortcomings. The goal of this project was to develop a new model and inform an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe examined prevalent models and conducted semi-structured discussions with 76 clinicians and comparative effectiveness research researchers affiliated with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's cancer comparative effectiveness research programs.
resultsA new model was iteratively developed and presents cancer comparative effectiveness research and important measures in a patient-centered, longitudinal chronic care model better reflecting contemporary cancer care in the context of the cancer care continuum, rather than a single-episode, acute-care perspective.
conclusionImmediately relevant for federally funded comparative effectiveness research programs, the model informs an evolving framework articulating cancer comparative effectiveness research data needs, including evolutionary enhancements to registries and epidemiologic research data systems. We discuss elements of contemporary clinical practice, methodology improvements, and related needs affecting comparative effectiveness research's ability to yield findings clinicians, policy makers, and stakeholders can confidently act on.
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.