Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Technology Assessment

  • Andrew S. Hoffman
  • Alberto Cambrosio
  • Renaldo Battista
Reference work entry
First Online:
Part of the Health Services Research book series (HEALTHSR)

Abstract

Over the past several years, health technology assessment (HTA) and, more recently, comparative effectiveness research (CER) have become routinely deployed in various jurisdictions around the world. Despite some overlap in the ways that HTA and CER are used in making decisions about the use of health-care technologies, the relationship between these two sets of practices is still quite tenuous. There has been much debate about how these practices should be defined, what methodologies they should deploy in answering specific questions, and what standards should be used in adjudicating evidence about the utility of health-care interventions. In contrast to much of the health policy literature that attempts to prescribe what HTA and CER ought to be, the present chapter provides a historical–empirical approach to understanding the state of play of the HTA-CER nexus. In so doing, it explores issues presented by various research designs, including clinical trials, observational studies, systematic review, and meta-analysis, the advent of engagement practices, the emergent themes of patient-centeredness and personalization, and the problem of assessing the clinical and economic value of health technologies. After reviewing these issues, it moves onto examining one specific project in the United States, which serves to show how CER can be used in HTA, as well as how some of the more general problems discussed in the extant literature are dealt with in a more routine setting.

Keywords

Health Technology Assessment Recurrence Score Comparative Effectiveness Research Engagement Practice Coverage With Evidence Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Banta D, Behney CJ. Office of technology assessment health program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:28–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Banta D, Jonsson E. History of HTA: introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Banta HD, Perry S. A history of ISTAHC. A personal perspective on its first 10 years. International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(3):430–53; discussion 54–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD, Reeve BB, Smith ML, Coons SJ, et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4249–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu A, Jena AB, Philipson TJ. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending. J Health Econ. 2011;30(4):695–706.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Becla L, Lunshof JE, Gurwitz D, Schulte In den Baumen T, Westerhoff HV, Lange BM, et al. Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):118–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Benson III A, Lyerly K. Improving medical decisions through comparative effectiveness research: cancer as a case study. Arlington: Friends of Cancer Research; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Berger PL, Luckman T. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books; 1966.Google Scholar
  10. Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report – Part I. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1044–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Berlin JA, Cepeda MS. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9(1):27–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bimber B. The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: The State University of New York Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  13. Birnbaum H, Slutsky JR. Guiding comparative effectiveness research – a US perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):839–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Blume SS. Assessing health technologies in a changing world. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 Suppl 1:276–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Boltanski L, Thévenot L. On justification: economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  17. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: a participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(1):135–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Braithwaite RS, Concato J, Chang CC, Roberts MS, Justice AC. A framework for tailoring clinical guidelines to comorbidity at the point of care. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2361–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):832–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpenter D. Reputation and power: organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation in the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. Chalkidou K, Anderson G. Comparative effectiveness research: international experiences and implications for the United States. Washington, DC: Academy Health; 2009.Google Scholar
  22. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, Ismaila A, Santaguida P, Smith D, Whitlock E, Wilt T, Moher D. Chapter 7: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. p. 112–29.Google Scholar
  23. Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(37):37–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):269–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research – some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise JM, Santa J, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, Gaziano JM, Aslan M, Huang GD. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123(12 Suppl 1):e16–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Conti R, Veenstra DL, Armstrong K, Lesko LJ, Grosse SD. Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(3):328–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012a;1(2):181–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Deverka PA, Schully SD, Ishibe N, Carlson JJ, Freedman A, Goddard KA, et al. Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies. Genet Med. 2012b;14(7):656–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Dreyer NA, Tunis SR, Berger M, Ollendorf D, Mattox P, Gliklich R. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1818–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Einsiedel E. Stakeholder representations in genomics. In: Atkinson P, Glasner P, Lock E, editors. Handbook of genomics and society: mapping the new genomic era. New York: Routledge; 2009.Google Scholar
  33. Epstein S. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Epstein S. Inclusion: the politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. EUnetHTA. Common questions – health technology assessment. What is health technology assessment? http://www.eunethta.eu/faq/Category%201-0#t287n73. Accessed 15 Jan 2013.
  36. Facey K, Topfer L, Chan L. INAHTA Health Technology Assessment (HTA) glossary. Stockholm: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; 2006. Available at: http://inahta.episerverhotell.net/upload/HTA_resources/Edu_INAHTA_glossary_July_2006_final.pdf
  37. Faulkner A. ‘Strange bedfellows’ in the laboratory of the NHS? An analysis of the new science of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Soc Health Illn. 1997;19(19b):183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Faulkner A. In the sociomedical laboratory of citizen health: exploring science, technology, governance and engagement in prostate cancer detection in the UK. Working Paper Series, No. 74. Cardiff: Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University; 2006.Google Scholar
  39. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCC-CER). Report to the president and the congress. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.Google Scholar
  40. Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984. (Quoted in Einsiedel 2009, p. 187)Google Scholar
  41. Garber A, Meltzer D. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research. In: Implementing comparative effectiveness research: priorities, methods, and impact. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2009. p. 15–33.Google Scholar
  42. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Goddard KA, Knaus WA, Whitlock E, Lyman GH, Feigelson HS, Schully SD, et al. Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med. 2012;14(7):633–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Goeree R, He J, O'Reilly D, Tarride JE, Xie F, Lim M, et al. Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: a systematic review of approaches for assessment and application. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:89–104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Goodman CS. HTA 101: introduction to health technology assessment. Falls Church: The Lewin Group; 2004.Google Scholar
  46. Goodman CS, Ahn R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform. 1999;56(1–3):97–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Greene JA. Swimming upstream: comparative effectiveness research in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(12):979–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Guyatt G, Sackett D, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S. Determining optimal therapy – randomized trials in individual patients. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(14):889–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Harrington SE. Incentivizing comparative effectiveness research. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Research Paper; 1 Jan 2011. Available at: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/Incentivizing_CER_3-30-11.pdf
  50. Helfand M, Tunis S, Whitlock EP, Pauker SG, Basu A, Chilingerian J, et al. A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4(3):188–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Herdman RC, Jensen JE. The OTA story: the agency perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1997;54(2–3):131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hlatky MA, Douglas PS, Cook NL, Wells B, Benjamin EJ, Dickersin K, et al. Future directions for cardiovascular disease comparative effectiveness research: report of a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(7):569–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Hodgetts K, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. What counts and how to count it: physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2191–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1834–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hunink MG. Decision making in the face of uncertainty and resource constraints: examples from trauma imaging. Radiology. 2005;235(2):375–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Husereau D. Sentence first, verdict afterwards: using value of information analysis to inform decisions about pharmacogenomic test adoption and research. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2010;8:167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, Evans W, Giacomini M, Glendining M, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(2):141–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. JOP. The southwest oncology group: new processes to coordinate increasingly complex clinical trials. J Oncol Pract. 2008;4(2):78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kamerow D. PCORI: odd name, important job, potential trouble. BMJ. 2011;342:d2635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Keating P, Cambrosio A. Cancer on trial: oncology as a new style of practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kim SY, Solomon DH. Use of administrative claims data for comparative effectiveness research of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Arthrit Res Therapy. 2011;13(5):129–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2012;10.Google Scholar
  63. Larson EB. N-of-1 trials: a new future? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):891–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Latour B. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  65. Lau EC, Mowat FS, Kelsh MA, Legg JC, Engel-Nitz NM, Watson HN, et al. Use of electronic medical records (EMR) for oncology outcomes research: assessing the comparability of EMR information to patient registry and health claims data. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:259–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.Google Scholar
  67. Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S, Hivon M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30(4):603–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Le Pen C. Is there a “continental” view of health economics evaluation? Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:121–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N, Jorgensen B, Brouwers MC, Easty T, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):299–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Luce B, Cohen RS. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:33–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:206–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):256–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Manchikanti L, Derby R, Wolfer L, Singh V, Datta S, Hirsch JA. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 7: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Pain Physician. 2009;12(6):929–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Helm 2nd S, Parr AT, Hirsch JA. 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. Pain Physician. 2011;14(3):E249–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Markussen R, Olesen F. Rhetorical authority in STS: reflections on a study of IT implementation at a hospital ward. Sci Cult. 2009;16(3):267–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, & Modernization Act of 2003, §1013; 2003.Google Scholar
  77. Merlin T, Farah C, Schubert C, Mitchell A, Hiller JE, Ryan P. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: a national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med Decis Making. 2012.Google Scholar
  78. Myers E, Sanders GD, Ravi D, Matchar D, Havrilesky L, Samsa G, Powers B, McBroom A, Musty M, Gray R. Erinoff EG. Evaluating the potential use of modeling and value-of-information analysis for future research prioritization within the evidence-based practice center program. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC030-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.Google Scholar
  79. Moreira T. Entangled evidence: knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Soc Health Illn. 2007;29(2):180–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moreira T. The transformation of contemporary health care: the market, the laboratory, and the forum. New York: Routledge; 2012.Google Scholar
  81. Nass SJ, Moses HL, Mendelsohn J, editors. A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  82. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Department of Health and Human Services. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Supporting Comparative Effectiveness Research; 2010. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/reports/plans/pdf20100610/NIH_Comparative%20Effectiveness%20%20June%202010.pdf
  83. National Cancer Institute (NCI). NCI guidelines for ARRA research and research infrastructure grand opportunities: comparative effectiveness research in genomic and personalized medicine; 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/PublishedContent/Files/PDF/recovery/004_cer_personalized_medicine.pdf
  84. Neumann PJ. What we talk about when we talk about health care costs. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):585–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. O’Rourke K. An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(12):579–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Development of medical technology, opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1976.Google Scholar
  87. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Rationale: working definition of patient-centered outcomes research; 2011. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/images/PCOR_Rationale.pdf
  88. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). 2011 annual report; 2012. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/assets/AnnualReport.pdf
  89. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), §6301; 2010.Google Scholar
  90. Purmonen TT, Pankalainen E, Turunen JH, Asseburg C, Martikainen JA. Short-course adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in early stage breast cancer in Finland: cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis based on the 5-year follow-up results of the FinHer Trial. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(3):344–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Ramsey S, Crowley J, Baker L, Barlow B, Burke W, Garrison L, Veenstra D, Tunis S. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics (CANCERGEN). Poster session presented at: the Inaugural Meeting of the Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network (GAPPNet™): A National Collaboration for Realizing the Promise of Genomics in Health Care and Disease Prevention; 2009 Oct 29–30; Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  92. Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Tunis S, Baker L, Crowley J, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34(1):1–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. Ramsey SD, Veenstra D, Tunis SR, Garrison L, Crowley JJ, Baker LH. How comparative effectiveness research can help advance ‘personalized medicine’ in cancer treatment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2259–68.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, et al., editors. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  95. Ray T. CancerGen’s First Comparative Effectiveness Trial to study oncotype DX in node-positive breast cancer. Pharmacogenomics Reporter [Serial on the Internet]. 2009 [cited 21 Oct 2009]. Available from: http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/cancergens-first-comparative-effectiveness-trial-study-oncotype-dx-node-positive
  96. Retel VP, Joore MA, Linn SC, Rutgers EJ, van Harten WH. Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:442.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. What are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316(7127):285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):143–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Scoggins JF, Ramsey SD. A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(17):1371.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Smith SR. Preface. Med Care. 2007;45(10s2):s1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, Ramsey SD. Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12:S39–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. SWOG. History. http://swog.org/visitors/history.asp. Accessed 22 Nov 2012.
  104. Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(1):128–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Thariani R, Veenstra DL, Carlson JJ, Garrison LP, Ramsey S. Paying for personalized care: cancer biomarkers and comparative effectiveness. Mol Oncol. 2012a;6(2):260–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  106. Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ, Garrison L, Ramsey S, Deverka PA, et al. Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN experience. Med Care. 2012b;50(5):388–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. Trosman JR, Van Bebber SL, Phillips KA. Health technology assessment and private payers’ coverage of personalized medicine. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(3 Suppl):18s–24s.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med. 2010;29(19):1963–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Tunis SR, Turkelson C. Using health technology assessment to identify gaps in evidence and inform study design for comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4256–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. University of Michigan. U-M gets $63 million NIH grant for SWOG cancer trials network [press release]. 2010 Apr 12. http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/news/swog-grant10.shtml. Accessed 31 July 2012.
  111. Viswanathan M, Ansari M, Berkman N, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters M, Santaguida PL, Shamliyan T, Tsertsvadze A, Treadwell J. Chapter 5: Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. P. 112–29.Google Scholar
  112. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. Chapter 2. Identifying, selecting, and refining topics. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. p. 15–31. (See also J Clin Epi 2010 article, published in edited form).Google Scholar
  113. Wilensky GR. Implementing the MMA. Health Financ Manage. 2004;58(6):30. 2.Google Scholar
  114. Wilson E, Abrams K. From evidence-based economics to economics-based evidence: using systematic review to inform the design of future research. In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, Marsh K, Donaldson C, editors. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. 2nd ed. Oxford: BMJ Books; 2010.Google Scholar
  115. Wong WB, Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Garrison Jr LP, Veenstra DL. The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007). Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(6):1117–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  116. World Health Organization. A quick reference compendium of selected key terms used in the world health report 2000. Geneva: WHO; 2000. http://who.int/health-systems-performance/docs/whr_2000_glossary.doc. Accessed 21 July 2008 (quoted in Einsiedel 2009, p. 187).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew S. Hoffman
    • 1
  • Alberto Cambrosio
    • 2
  • Renaldo Battista
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social Studies of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Social Science in MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Health AdministrationUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations