• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.推进比较有效性研究方法的 CTSA 议程。
Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Jun;4(3):188-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x.
2
Can CER be an effective tool for change in the development and assessment of new drugs and technologies?成本效果分析(CER)能否成为新药和新技术研发及评估中推动变革的有效工具?
J Manag Care Pharm. 2012 Jun;18(5 Supp A):S06-11. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2012.18.s5-a.S06.
3
A Patient-Centered Approach to Comparative Effectiveness Research Focused on Older Adults: Lessons From the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.以老年患者为中心的比较效果研究方法:来自患者为中心的结局研究学会的经验。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Jan;67(1):21-28. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15655. Epub 2018 Dec 26.
4
The impact of comparative effectiveness research on interventional pain management: evolution from Medicare Modernization Act to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.比较疗效研究对介入性疼痛管理的影响:从医疗保险现代化法案到患者保护与平价医疗法案以及患者为中心的医疗成果研究所的演变。
Pain Physician. 2011 May-Jun;14(3):E249-82.
5
Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Focused on Community-Based Delivery of Palliative Care: Overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Funding Initiative.以社区为基础的姑息治疗服务为重点的临床效果比较研究:患者为中心的结局研究学会资助倡议概述。
J Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;22(S1):2-6. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0370.
6
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
7
It is important to note that RWD will never replace the more traditional and more robust RCT data; however, the emerging trend is to incorporate data that are more generalizable. Introduction.需要注意的是,真实世界数据(RWD)永远无法取代更为传统且更为可靠的随机对照试验(RCT)数据;然而,新出现的趋势是纳入更具普遍性的数据。引言。
J Manag Care Pharm. 2011 Nov-Dec;17(9 Suppl A):S03-4.
8
An official American Thoracic Society research statement: comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.美国胸科学会官方研究声明:肺部、危重病学和睡眠医学的比较效果研究。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov 15;188(10):1253-61. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201310-1790ST.
9
The case for a comparative, value-based alternative to the patient-centered outcomes research model for comparative effectiveness research.倡导采用基于价值的、与患者为中心的结果研究模型相比较的方法,作为比较有效性研究的替代方法。
Neurosurg Focus. 2012 Jul;33(1):E8. doi: 10.3171/2012.5.FOCUS12127.
10
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.

引用本文的文献

1
Understanding practice-based research participation: The differing motivations of engaged vs. non-engaged clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials.理解基于实践的研究参与:务实临床试验中参与和未参与的临床医生的不同动机。
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016 Aug 23;4:136-140. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.08.003. eCollection 2016 Dec 15.
2
Multiple- vs Non- or Single-Imputation based Fuzzy Clustering for Incomplete Longitudinal Behavioral Intervention Data.基于多重插补与非插补或单重插补的模糊聚类方法处理不完全纵向行为干预数据
IEEE Int Conf Connect Health Appl Syst Eng Technol. 2016 Jun;2016:219-228. doi: 10.1109/CHASE.2016.19. Epub 2016 Aug 18.
3
MIFuzzy Clustering for Incomplete Longitudinal Data in Smart Health.智能健康中不完整纵向数据的MIFuzzy聚类
Smart Health (Amst). 2017 Jun;1-2:50-65. doi: 10.1016/j.smhl.2017.04.002. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
4
A New MI-Based Visualization Aided Validation Index for Mining Big Longitudinal Web Trial Data.一种基于互信息的可视化辅助验证指标,用于挖掘大型纵向网络试验数据
IEEE Access. 2016;4:2272-2280. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2569074. Epub 2016 May 16.
5
The predicament of comparative effectiveness research using observational data.利用观察性数据进行比较效果研究的困境。
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Nov 17;163(10):799-800. doi: 10.7326/M15-2490. Epub 2015 Oct 27.
6
The Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute's Role in Advancing Methods for Patient-centered Outcomes Research.以患者为中心的结果研究所(Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute)在推进以患者为中心的结果研究方法方面的作用。
Med Care. 2015 Jan;53(1):2-8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000244.
7
A national strategy to develop pragmatic clinical trials infrastructure.制定实用临床试验基础设施发展国家战略。
Clin Transl Sci. 2014 Apr;7(2):164-71. doi: 10.1111/cts.12143. Epub 2014 Jan 28.
8
A partnership of two U.S. research networks to improve public health.两个美国研究网络的合作,旨在改善公共卫生。
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Dec;45(6):745-51. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.010.
9
The patient is in: patient involvement strategies for diagnostic error mitigation.患者处于:参与策略可减轻诊断错误。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii33-ii39. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001623. Epub 2013 Jul 26.
10
Value-of-information analysis within a stakeholder-driven research prioritization process in a US setting: an application in cancer genomics.在美国背景下,基于利益相关者驱动的研究优先级制定过程中的信息价值分析:在癌症基因组学中的应用。
Med Decis Making. 2013 May;33(4):463-71. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13484388.

本文引用的文献

1
Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions.投资于审议:为面临困难健康决策的人提供决策支持干预措施的定义和分类。
Med Decis Making. 2010 Nov-Dec;30(6):701-11. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10386231. Epub 2010 Nov 18.
2
How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies.如何最好地让患者、医生和其他利益相关者参与设计比较效果研究。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1834-41. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0675.
3
Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research.为什么观察性研究应该成为比较有效性研究中使用的工具之一。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1818-25. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0666.
4
A flexible approach to evidentiary standards for comparative effectiveness research.一种灵活的比较疗效研究证据标准方法。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1812-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0692.
5
The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research.成本在比较效果研究中的作用。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Oct;29(10):1805-11. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0647.
6
Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal.评估和报告临床试验中治疗效果的异质性:建议。
Trials. 2010 Aug 12;11:85. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-85.
7
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: the intersection of science and health care.患者为中心的结局研究学会:科学与医疗保健的交汇点。
Sci Transl Med. 2010 Jun 23;2(37):37cm18. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001235.
8
Public engagement in research funding: a study of public capabilities and engagement methodology.公众参与研究经费投入:公众能力与参与方法研究。
Public Underst Sci. 2010 Mar;19(2):225-39. doi: 10.1177/0963662508096780.
9
Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial.在决策辅助工具中加入价值观澄清练习对预防心脏病的效果:一项随机试验。
Med Decis Making. 2010 Jul-Aug;30(4):E28-39. doi: 10.1177/0272989X10369008. Epub 2010 May 18.
10
Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications.将比较疗效转化为实践:以糖尿病药物为例。
Med Care. 2010 Jun;48(6 Suppl):S153-8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d5956c.

推进比较有效性研究方法的 CTSA 议程。

A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.

机构信息

Oregon Clinical & Translational Research Center, Oregon Health & Sciences University, and Department of Hospital and Specialty Medicine, The Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, OR, USA.

出版信息

Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Jun;4(3):188-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x
PMID:21707950
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4567896/
Abstract

Clinical research needs to be more useful to patients, clinicians, and other decision makers. To meet this need, more research should focus on patient-centered outcomes, compare viable alternatives, and be responsive to individual patients' preferences, needs, pathobiology, settings, and values. These features, which make comparative effectiveness research (CER) fundamentally patient-centered, challenge researchers to adopt or develop methods that improve the timeliness, relevance, and practical application of clinical studies. In this paper, we describe 10 priority areas that address 3 critical needs for research on patient-centered outcomes (PCOR): (1) developing and testing trustworthy methods to identify and prioritize important questions for research; (2) improving the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical research studies; and (3) linking the process and outcomes of actual practice to priorities for research on patient-centered outcomes. We argue that the National Institutes of Health, through its clinical and translational research program, should accelerate the development and refinement of methods for CER by linking a program of methods research to the broader portfolio of large, prospective clinical and health system studies it supports. Insights generated by this work should be of enormous value to PCORI and to the broad range of organizations that will be funding and implementing CER.

摘要

临床研究需要对患者、临床医生和其他决策者更加有用。为了满足这一需求,更多的研究应该侧重于以患者为中心的结果,比较可行的替代方案,并对个体患者的偏好、需求、病理生物学、环境和价值观做出回应。这些使比较效果研究(CER)从根本上以患者为中心的特点,要求研究人员采用或开发能够提高临床研究的及时性、相关性和实际应用的方法。在本文中,我们描述了 10 个优先领域,这些领域针对以患者为中心的结果研究的 3 个关键需求:(1)开发和测试可靠的方法,以确定和优先考虑研究的重要问题;(2)改进临床研究的设计、实施和分析;(3)将实际实践的过程和结果与以患者为中心的结果研究的优先事项联系起来。我们认为,美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)应该通过其临床和转化研究计划,通过将方法研究计划与它支持的大型前瞻性临床和卫生系统研究的更广泛组合联系起来,加速 CER 方法的开发和完善。这项工作产生的见解对 PCORI 和将资助和实施 CER 的广泛组织将具有巨大价值。