Since 2004, the 14 Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) in the United States and
Canada have prepared comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) for the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Effective Health Care program [
[1]
]. From its inception, the Effective Health Care program has invited the public to
comment on draft CERs. The articles in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology address some of the most frequently mentioned methodological inconsistencies encountered
in the first year and a half of public and peer comment on these reviews.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- AHRQ Series Paper 1: Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 481-483
- Challenges in meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials for rare harmful cardiovascular events: the case of rosiglitazone.Am Heart J. 2008; 156: 23-30
- Comparative effectiveness of epoetin and darbepoetin for managing anemia in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Comparative effectiveness review No. 3. (Prepared by Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-02-0026.).Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD2006 (Available at) (accessed March 7, 2010)
- AHRQ Series Paper 4: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 502-512
- Case reports in an evidence-based world.J R Soc Med. 1999; 92: 159-163
- Balancing benefits and harms in health care: observational data on harm should complement.BMJ. 2003; 327: 750
- Case reports of suspected adverse drug reactions: case reports were dismissed too quickly.BMJ. 2006; 332: 488
- AHRQ Series Paper 2: Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 484-490
- Real-world trials to answer real-world questions.Pharmacoeconomics. 2005; 23: 747-754
- Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by appropriately designed clinical trials.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; ([ePub ahead of press])
- AHRQ Series Paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 491-501
- Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research.The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2009
- AHRQ Series Paper 5: Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program.J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63 (In this issue): 513-523
- Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ. 2004; 328: 1490
- Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs.Int J Qual Health Care. 2004; 16: 9-18
- Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.Am J Prev Med. 2001; 20: 21-35
- Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions.Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008; 24: 244-258
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
November 30,
2009
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
