Key result
Workshop report outlines evidence framework and proposes comparative effectiveness studies for 8 priority cardiovascular topics.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease is a priority area for comparative effectiveness research, requiring new frameworks and studies to address high-priority clinical issues.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This report provides a strategic roadmap for designing future cardiovascular comparative effectiveness trials and clinical registries.
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) aims to provide decision-makers the evidence needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of alternative clinical management strategies. CER has become a national priority, with considerable new research funding allocated. Cardiovascular disease is a priority area for CER. This workshop report provides an overview of CER methods, with an emphasis on practical clinical trials and observational treatment comparisons. The report also details recommendations to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute for a new framework for evidence development to foster cardiovascular CER, and specific studies to address eight clinical issues identified by the Institute of Medicine as high priorities for cardiovascular CER.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hlatky et al. (2012) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease. Comparative Effectiveness Research strategies was evaluated. This workshop report outlines a framework for evidence development and proposes specific comparative effectiveness studies for eight high-priority cardiovascular topics.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: