ArticleNature reviews. Rheumatology2014
The landscape of comparative effectiveness research in rheumatology.
Article in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Practice and consensus-based strategies in diagnosing and managing systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis in Germany.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2018Guideline
- Development of practice and consensus-based strategies including a treat-to-target approach for the management of moderate and severe juvenile dermatomyositis in Germany and Austria.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2018Article
- Optimizing treatment in paediatric rheumatology--lessons from oncology.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a growing area of investigation aimed at determining the most beneficial treatments for patients in view of their clinical characteristics. CER provides personalized treatment information that cannot be obtained from traditional clinical trials. However, many analytical challenges to performing CER remain, particularly in nonexperimental settings. The main obstacles to CER include bias from variation in use of treatments, and heterogeneity in types and quality of data across registries. Increasing standardization of care and consensus among stakeholders regarding CER methodology will strengthen the validity of CER from observational data. Innovations in outcomes measurement, and the ability to repurpose electronic health record data for research will increase the capability to assess treatment effects by CER in clinical practice. Investment in infrastructure, informatics, and data management to sustain high-quality registries, along with engagement of stakeholders to maintain a co-ordinated research agenda, are essential for successful CER in rheumatology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24061502What 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.