SMHS MethodsHeterogeneity CER - Revision history

Pineaumi: /* Footnotes */

2016-05-23T19:03:37Z

‎Footnotes

Pineaumi: /* Case-Study 3: The Nurses’ Health Study */

2016-05-23T19:02:54Z

‎Case-Study 3: The Nurses’ Health Study

Pineaumi: /* Footnotes */

2016-05-23T19:02:19Z

‎Footnotes

Pineaumi: /* Case-Study 2: The Rosiglitazone Study */

2016-05-23T19:01:38Z

‎Case-Study 2: The Rosiglitazone Study

Pineaumi: /* Footnotes */

2016-05-23T19:00:26Z

‎Footnotes

Pineaumi: /* Compete Dataset for N-of-1 Example */

2016-05-23T18:58:39Z

‎Compete Dataset for N-of-1 Example

Pineaumi: /* Case-Study 1: The Cetuximab Study */

2016-05-23T18:57:45Z

‎Case-Study 1: The Cetuximab Study

Pineaumi: /* Methods for Studying Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research - Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) */

2016-05-23T18:57:20Z

‎Methods for Studying Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research - Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

Pineaumi: /* Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners */

2016-05-23T18:56:34Z

‎Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners

Imoubara at 13:24, 23 May 2016

2016-05-23T13:24:50Z

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 *<sup>14</sup> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-cetuximab
 *<sup>15</sup> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa072761
 ===[[SMHS_MethodsHeterogeneity|Back to the Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research section]]===

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 *Nothing is permanent. Emerging data may change the playing field, and meta- analysis results are only as good as the data and statistics from which they are derived.
-===Case-Study 3: The Nurses’ Health Study===
+===Case-Study 3: The Nurses’ Health Study<sup>16</sup>===
 <b>An observational study</b>

@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 *<sup>13</sup> Based on 2009 NPC report, http://www.npcnow.org/publication/demystifying-comparative-effectiveness-research-case-study-learning-guide
 *<sup>14</sup> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-cetuximab
 ===[[SMHS_MethodsHeterogeneity|Back to the Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research section]]===

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 *Targeted therapy illuminated by carefully thought out subgroup analyses can improve the efficacious and safe use of an intervention.
-===Case-Study 2: The Rosiglitazone Study===
+===Case-Study 2: The Rosiglitazone Study<sup>15</sup>===
 <b>Meta-analysis</b>

@@ Line 209: / Line 209: @@
 ===Footnotes===
-*<sup>13</sup> Based on 2009 NPC report, www.npcnow.org/publication/demystifying-comparative-effectiveness-research-case-study-learning-guide
+*<sup>13</sup> Based on 2009 NPC report, http://www.npcnow.org/publication/demystifying-comparative-effectiveness-research-case-study-learning-guide
 *<sup>14</sup> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-cetuximab

@@ Line 206: / Line 206: @@
 ===Compete Dataset for N-of-1 Example===
 [[SMHS_MethodsHeterogeneity_CER_Nof1|This N-of-1 Dataset]] includes an example.
 ===[[SMHS_MethodsHeterogeneity|Back to the Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research section]]===

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *Observational studies can identify associations but cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships.
-===Case-Study 1: The Cetuximab Study===
+===Case-Study 1: The Cetuximab Study<sup>14</sup>===
 <b>What was done and what was found?</b>

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 23 May 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	==[[SMHS_MethodsHeterogeneity\| Methods for Studying Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research]] - Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) ==	+	==[[SMHS_MethodsHeterogeneity\| Methods for Studying Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects, Case-Studies of Comparative Effectiveness Research]] - Comparative Effectiveness Research: Case Studies <sup>13</sup> (CER) ==
−
−	~~===Overview=~~==

	===Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners===		===Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners===

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ===Overview===
-==Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners==
+===Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners===
 *Different study types can offer different understandings; neither should be discounted without closer examination.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==Observational Studies: Tips for the CER Practitioners==
-•	Different study types can offer different understandings; neither should be discounted without closer examination.
+*Different study types can offer different understandings; neither should be discounted without closer examination.
-•	RCTs provide an accurate understanding of the effect of a particular intervention in a well-defined patient group under “controlled” circumstances.
+*RCTs provide an accurate understanding of the effect of a particular intervention in a well-defined patient group under “controlled” circumstances.
-•	Observational studies provide an understanding of real-world care and its impact, but can be biased due to uncontrolled factors.
+*Observational studies provide an understanding of real-world care and its impact, but can be biased due to uncontrolled factors.
-•	Observational studies differ in the types of databases used. These databases may lack clinical detail and contain incomplete or inaccurate data.
+*Observational studies differ in the types of databases used. These databases may lack clinical detail and contain incomplete or inaccurate data.
-•	Before accepting the findings from an observational study, consider whether confounding factors may have influenced the results.
+*Before accepting the findings from an observational study, consider whether confounding factors may have influenced the results.
-•	In this scenario, subgroup analysis was vital in clarifying both study designs; what is true for the many (e.g., overall, estrogen appeared to be detrimental) may not be true for the few (e.g., that for the younger post-menopausal woman, the benefits were greater and the harms less frequent).
+*In this scenario, subgroup analysis was vital in clarifying both study designs; what is true for the many (e.g., overall, estrogen appeared to be detrimental) may not be true for the few (e.g., that for the younger post-menopausal woman, the benefits were greater and the harms less frequent).
-•	Carefully examine the generalizability of the study. Do the study’s patients and intervention match those under consideration?
+*Carefully examine the generalizability of the study. Do the study’s patients and intervention match those under consideration?
-•	Observational studies can identify associations but cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships.
+*Observational studies can identify associations but cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships.
 ===Case-Study 1: The Cetuximab Study===
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 <b>RCTs Tips for the CER Practitioners</b>
-•	RCTs can determine whether an intervention can provide benefit in a very controlled environment.
+*RCTs can determine whether an intervention can provide benefit in a very controlled environment.
-•	The controlled nature of an RCT may limit its generalizability to a broader population.
+*The controlled nature of an RCT may limit its generalizability to a broader population.
-•	No results are permanent; advances in scientific knowledge and understanding can influence how we view the effectiveness (or safety) of a therapeutic intervention.
+*No results are permanent; advances in scientific knowledge and understanding can influence how we view the effectiveness (or safety) of a therapeutic intervention.
-•	Targeted therapy illuminated by carefully thought out subgroup analyses can improve the efficacious and safe use of an intervention.
+*Targeted therapy illuminated by carefully thought out subgroup analyses can improve the efficacious and safe use of an intervention.
 ===Case-Study 2: The Rosiglitazone Study===
@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 <b>Meta-Analysis: Tips for CER Practitioners</b>
-•	The results of a meta-analysis are highly dependent on the studies included (and excluded). Are these criteria properly defined and relevant to the purposes of the meta-analysis? Were the combined studies sufficiently similar? Can results from this cohort be generalized to other populations of interest?
+*The results of a meta-analysis are highly dependent on the studies included (and excluded). Are these criteria properly defined and relevant to the purposes of the meta-analysis? Were the combined studies sufficiently similar? Can results from this cohort be generalized to other populations of interest?
-•	The statistical methodology can impact study results. Have there been reviews critiquing the methods used in the meta-analysis?
+*The statistical methodology can impact study results. Have there been reviews critiquing the methods used in the meta-analysis?
-•	A variety of statistical tests should be considered, and perhaps reported, in the analysis of results. Do the authors mention their rationale in choosing a statistical method? Do they show the stability of their results across a spectrum of analytical methods?
+*A variety of statistical tests should be considered, and perhaps reported, in the analysis of results. Do the authors mention their rationale in choosing a statistical method? Do they show the stability of their results across a spectrum of analytical methods?
-•	Nothing is permanent. Emerging data may change the playing field, and meta- analysis results are only as good as the data and statistics from which they are derived.
+*Nothing is permanent. Emerging data may change the playing field, and meta- analysis results are only as good as the data and statistics from which they are derived.
 ===Case-Study 3: The Nurses’ Health Study===