首页> 外文期刊>Annals of Internal Medicine >Rethinking Randomized Clinical Trials for Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Need for Transformational Change
【24h】

Rethinking Randomized Clinical Trials for Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Need for Transformational Change

机译:重新考虑随机临床试验以进行比较有效性研究:变革性变革的必要性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Join the dialogue on health care reform. Comment on the perspectives published in Annals and offer ideas of your own. All thoughtful voices should be heard. nnWhile advances in medical science have led to continued improvements in medical care and health outcomes, evidence of the comparative effectiveness of alternative management options remains inadequate for informed medical care and health policy decision making. The result is frequently suboptimal and inefficient care as well as unsustainable costs. To enhance or at least maintain quality of care as health reform and cost containment occurs, better evidence of comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness is required (1). nnThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated a $1.1 billion “down payment” to support comparative effectiveness research (CER) (2). Although comparative effectiveness can be informed by synthesis of existing clinical information (systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and decision modeling) and analysis of observational data (administrative claims, electronic medical records, registries and other clinical cohorts, and case–control studies), randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most rigorous method of generating comparative effectiveness evidence and will necessarily occupy a central role in an expanded national CER agenda. nnHowever, as currently designed and conducted, many RCTs are ill suited to meet the evidentiary needs implicit in the IOM definition of CER: comparison of effective interventions among patients in typical patient care settings, with decisions tailored to individual patient needs (3). Without major changes in how we conceive, design, conduct, and analyze RCTs, the nation risks spending large sums of money inefficiently to answer the wrong questions—or the right questions too late. nnThis article addresses several fundamental limitations of traditional RCTs for meeting CER objectives and offers 3 potentially transformational approaches to enhance their operational efficiency, analytical efficiency, and generalizability for CER.
机译:加入有关医疗改革的对话。评论发表在《 Annals》上的观点,并提出自己的想法。应该听到所有体贴的声音。 nn虽然医学科学的进步导致医疗保健和健康成果的持续改善,但替代管理方案相对有效性的证据仍然不足以进行明智的医疗保健和保健政策决策。结果经常是次优和低效的护理以及不可持续的费用。为了在医疗改革和成本控制发生时提高或至少保持护理质量,需要有比较临床和成本效益的更好证据(1)。 nn《 2009年美国复苏与再投资法案》分配了11亿美元的“首付款”,以支持比较有效性研究(CER)(2)。尽管可以通过综合现有的临床信息(系统评价,荟萃分析和决策模型)和观察数据的分析(行政要求,电子病历,登记册和其他临床队列以及病例对照研究)来告知比较有效性,随机临床试验(RCT)是产生比较有效性证据的最严格的方法,必将在扩大的国家CER议程中发挥核心作用。 nn然而,按照当前的设计和实施,许多RCT不适合满足IOM定义中隐含的证据需求:比较典型患者护理环境中患者之间的有效干预措施,并根据个人患者需求量身定制决策(3)。如果我们在构思,设计,实施和分析RCT的方式上没有重大变化,那么美国可能会冒着效率低下花费大量资金来回答错误问题或正确问题的时机。 nn本文解决了传统RCT在实现CER目标方面的几个基本局限性,并提供了3种潜在的转型方法来提高其CER的运行效率,分析效率和通用性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号