ArticleThe EPMA journal2010
Personalized medicine and comparative effectiveness research in an era of fixed budgets.
Article in The EPMA journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Personalized medicine and health equity: overcoming cost barriers and ethical challenges.International journal for equity in health · 2025Review
- Physicians' Perspective on Diabetes Mellitus Management within the Context of Personalized Medicine Era in Tabuk Governorate, Saudi Arabia.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- Comparative Effectiveness Research in Pediatric Respiratory Disease: Promise and Pitfalls.Paediatric drugs · 2018Review
- Shifting breast cancer surveillance from current hospital setting to a community based setting: a cost-effectiveness study.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Innovative payer engagement strategies: will the convergence lead to better value creation in personalized medicine?The EPMA journal · 2017Review
- Medicine in the early twenty-first century: paradigm and anticipation - EPMA position paper 2016.The EPMA journal · 2016Review
- Personalized management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: reflections from a Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum.Diabetes care · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For personalized medicine to be widely adopted in clinical practice, stakeholders need evidence of effectiveness, cost effectiveness and financial viability. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using population based, retrospective data can inform assessments of personalized medicine. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential and the limitations of CER. While the analytic methods and data used for CER overcome many of the disadvantages of randomized controlled trials, there are significant barriers, including lack of routinely collected genetic information, patient-reported outcomes and information on new and emerging technologies. Recommendations for using CER include augmenting current data with genetic information, promoting the collection of uniform health outcomes, using value of information analysis to guide development of new technologies, and greater use of decision analysis. Finally, in order to address stakeholder concerns regarding short term financial viability, additional emphasis should be devoted to cost analysis of implementation costs and overall financial impact.
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.