Skip to main content

Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Ramsey, SD; Sullivan, SD; Reed, SD; Tina Shih, Y-C; Schaecher, K; Dhanda, R; Patt, D; Pendergrass, K; Walker, M; Malin, J; Schwartzberg, L ...
Published in: Oncologist
June 2013

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers in making more informed decisions that will improve cancer care and outcomes. Despite its promise, the factors that distinguish CER from other types of evidence remain mysterious to many oncologists. One concern is whether CER studies will improve decision making in oncology or only add to the massive amount of research information that decision makers must sift through as part of their professional responsibilities. In this report, we highlight several issues that distinguish CER from the most common way evidence is generated for cancer therapy-phase I-III clinical trials. To identify the issues that are most relevant to busy decision makers, we assembled a panel of active professionals with a wide range of roles in cancer care delivery. This panel identified five themes that they considered most important for CER in oncology, as well as fundamental threats to the validity of individual CER studies-threats they termed the "kiss of death" for their applicability to practice. In discussing these concepts, we also touched upon the notion of whether cancer is special among health issues with regard to how evidence is generated and used.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Oncologist

DOI

EISSN

1549-490X

Publication Date

June 2013

Volume

18

Issue

6

Start / End Page

760 / 767

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Physicians
  • Oncology & Carcinogenesis
  • Neoplasms
  • Humans
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Decision Making
  • Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • 3211 Oncology and carcinogenesis
  • 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Ramsey, S. D., Sullivan, S. D., Reed, S. D., Tina Shih, Y.-C., Schaecher, K., Dhanda, R., … Small, A. (2013). Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting. The Oncologist, 18(6), 760–767. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0386
Ramsey, Scott D., Sean D. Sullivan, Shelby D. Reed, Ya-Chen Tina Shih, Ken Schaecher, Rahul Dhanda, Debra Patt, et al. “Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting.The Oncologist 18, no. 6 (June 2013): 760–67. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0386.
Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD, Reed SD, Tina Shih Y-C, Schaecher K, Dhanda R, et al. Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting. The oncologist. 2013 Jun;18(6):760–7.
Ramsey, Scott D., et al. “Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting.The Oncologist, vol. 18, no. 6, June 2013, pp. 760–67. Epmc, doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0386.
Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD, Reed SD, Tina Shih Y-C, Schaecher K, Dhanda R, Patt D, Pendergrass K, Walker M, Malin J, Schwartzberg L, Neumann K, Yu E, Ravelo A, Small A. Oncology comparative effectiveness research: a multistakeholder perspective on principles for conduct and reporting. The oncologist. 2013 Jun;18(6):760–767.

Published In

Oncologist

DOI

EISSN

1549-490X

Publication Date

June 2013

Volume

18

Issue

6

Start / End Page

760 / 767

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Physicians
  • Oncology & Carcinogenesis
  • Neoplasms
  • Humans
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Decision Making
  • Comparative Effectiveness Research
  • 3211 Oncology and carcinogenesis
  • 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis