In Reply We thank Pimazoni-Netto et al for their letter and include our response to their concerns. In considering our published results,1 it is of tantamount importance that readers understand the tenets of comparative effectiveness research (CER). Comparative effectiveness research studies are pragmatic in nature, and they are designed to: (1) inform health care decisions and/or policy; (2) evaluate 2 or more interventions that have the potential to represent best practice; and (3) be executed in real-world, clinical settings.2 The MONITOR trial1 was designed as a comparative effectiveness trial. For those steeped in the traditions of efficacy trials, fully embracing the tenets of CER can be challenging.
Young LA, Buse JB, Donahue KE. Concerns About Conclusions of Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose—Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1874–1875. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.6152
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: