ReviewPerspectives in clinical research
Comparative effectiveness research and its utility in In-clinic practice.
Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis for the impact of rod materials and sizes in the surgical treatment of adult spine deformity.Spine deformity · 2022Pooled it
- Discontinuation of non-anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in interventional versus observational studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Development and Value of a Centralized Text Message-based Tracking and Support Program for the PRECIDENTD Study.Medical care · 2026Article
- Harmonizing self-reported and free text medication data: a reproducible pipeline for gerontological research.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Continuous biosignal acquisition beyond the limit of epidermal turnover.Materials horizons · 2025Review
- Data-driven simulations to assess the impact of study imperfections in time-to-event analyses.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Factors Contributing to Postoperative Radiotherapy Delays in Head and Neck Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Prognosis of stage III cervical cancer: a two-way outcome study.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Real world evidence: An Indian perspective.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
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
One of the important components of patient-centered healthcare is comparative effectiveness research (CER), which aims at generating evidence from the real-life setting. The primary purpose of CER is to provide comparative information to the healthcare providers, patients, and policy makers about the standard of care available. This involves research on clinical questions unanswered by the explanatory trials during the regulatory approval process. Main methods of CER involve randomized controlled trials and observational methods. The limitations of these two methods have been overcome with the help of new statistical methods. After the evidence generation, it is equally important to communicate the results to all the interested organizations. CER is beginning to have its impact in the clinical practice as its results become part of the clinical practice guidelines. CER will have far-reaching scientific and financial impact. CER will make both the treating physician and the patient equally responsible for the treatment offered.
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.