[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 21
Citations 0
Comment & Response
December 2017

Concerns About Conclusions of Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
  • 2Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
  • 3Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(12):1874-1875. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.6152

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.

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