[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.171.35. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Commentary
August 25, 2010

Minimizing Bias Due to Confounding by Indication in Comparative Effectiveness ResearchThe Importance of Restriction

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, Departments of Medicine (Drs Psaty and Siscovick), Epidemiology (Drs Psaty and Siscovick), and Health Services (Dr Psaty), University of Washington, Seattle; and Group Health Research Institute (Drs Psaty and Siscovick), Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington.

JAMA. 2010;304(8):897-898. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1205

Health care reform has invigorated the genre of comparative effectiveness. With new congressional funding to identify which clinical strategies may work best, this research is poised to inform clinical care, health care policy, and the funding of health care. Although comparative effectiveness studies also include randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews, the expanded availability of large administrative databases and electronic medical records has provided new opportunities to conduct observational studies without the traditional burden of actually having to collect data with purpose. Observational studies of the health outcomes associated with clinical strategies—drug therapies, surgical procedures, and chronic disease management—generally take 1 of 2 forms, comparative effectiveness or comparative safety, which pose different challenges.1

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×