Premium
The role of comparative effectiveness research in transfusion medicine clinical trials: proceedings of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop
Author(s) -
Blajchman Morris A.,
Carson Jeffrey L.,
Eikelboom John W.,
Heddle Nancy M.,
Lacroix Jacques,
Lauer Michael S.,
Platt Richard,
Tilley Barbara,
Triulzi Darrell,
Vickers Andrew J.,
Yusuf Salim,
Glynn Simone,
Mondoro Traci Heath,
Wagner Elizabeth
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03640.x
Subject(s) - medicine , vanguard , comparative effectiveness research , transfusion medicine , clinical trial , health care , alternative medicine , clinical practice , medical education , intensive care medicine , blood transfusion , family medicine , political science , surgery , pathology , archaeology , law , history
Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the study of existing treatments or ways to deliver health care to determine what intervention works best under specific circumstances. CER evaluates evidence from existing studies or generates new evidence, in different populations and under specific conditions in which the treatments are actually used. CER does not embrace one research design over another but compares treatments and variations in practice using methods that are most likely to yield widely generalizable results that are directly relevant to clinical practice. Treatments used in transfusion medicine (TM) are among the most widely used in clinical practice, but are among the least well studied. High‐quality evidence is lacking for most transfusion practices, with research efforts hampered by regulatory restrictions and ethical barriers. To begin addressing these issues, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop in June 2011 to address the potential role of CER in the generation of high‐quality evidence for TM decision making. Workshop goals were to: 1) evaluate the current landscape of clinical research, 2) review the potential application of CER methods to clinical research, 3) assess potential barriers to the use of CER methodology, 4) determine whether pilot or vanguard studies can be used to facilitate planning of future CER research, and 5) consider the need for and delivery of training in CER methods for researchers.