ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017
Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 1. Framing the Research Question.
Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improvement science as the engine for the next generation of learning health networks.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Feasibility of implementing a rapid-learning methodology to inform radiotherapy treatments: key professional stakeholders' views.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- Comparing Kaiser Permanente Members to the General Population: Implications for Generalizability of Research.The Permanente journal · 2023Article
- Systematic Patient Navigation Strategies to Scale Breast Cancer Disparity Reduction by Improved Cancer Prevention and Care Delivery Processes.JCO oncology practice · 2020Article
- Implementing learning health systems in the UK NHS: Policy actions to improve collaboration and transparency and support innovation and better use of analytics.Learning health systems · 2020Article
- Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 2. Design of Observational Studies.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2017Article
- Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 4. Delivery System Science.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2017Article
- Analytical Methods for a Learning Health System: 3. Analysis of Observational Studies.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2017Article
- Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning health systems use routinely collected electronic health data (EHD) to advance knowledge and support continuous learning. Even without randomization, observational studies can play a central role as the nation's health care system embraces comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research. However, neither the breadth, timeliness, volume of the available information, nor sophisticated analytics, allow analysts to confidently infer causal relationships from observational data. However, depending on the research question, careful study design and appropriate analytical methods can improve the utility of EHD. The introduction to a series of four papers, this review begins with a discussion of the kind of research questions that EHD can help address, noting how different evidence and assumptions are needed for each. We argue that when the question involves describing the current (and likely future) state of affairs, causal inference is not relevant, so randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are not necessary. When the question is whether an intervention improves outcomes of interest, causal inference is critical, but appropriately designed and analyzed observational studies can yield valid results that better balance internal and external validity than typical RCTs. When the question is one of translation and spread of innovations, a different set of questions comes into play: How and why does the intervention work? How can a model be amended or adapted to work in new settings? In these "delivery system science" settings, causal inference is not the main issue, so a range of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research designs are needed. We then describe why RCTs are regarded as the gold standard for assessing cause and effect, how alternative approaches relying on observational data can be used to the same end, and how observational studies of EHD can be effective complements to RCTs. We also describe how RCTs can be a model for designing rigorous observational studies, building an evidence base through iterative studies that build upon each other (i.e., confirmation across multiple investigations).
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.