Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the main source of data driving evidence-based practice and the primary method for establishing the efficacy of an intervention. However, for a variety of reasons, the universe of research questions that can be definitively addressed by traditional RCTs is limited.1 At the heart of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is a desire to generate real-world evidence demonstrating the effectiveness (rather than the efficacy) of an intervention using real-world data (obtained outside the often-ideal conditions of a traditional RCT). As value-based reimbursement models are better integrated into the US health care system and patient-centered care is increasingly emphasized, there will be a greater need for high-quality CER studies to inform the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatments and to help identify the right type of treatment for patients being treated in specific clinical contexts.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Massarweh NN, Haukoos JS, Ghaferi AA. ISPOR Reporting Guidelines for Comparative Effectiveness Research. JAMA Surg. Published online April 07, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0534
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: