SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Helfand M, Tunis S, Whitlock EP, Pauker SG, Basu A, Chilingerian J, Harrell FE, Meltzer DO, Montori VM, Shepard DS, et al. A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011; 4: 188198.
  • 2
    Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003; 290: 16241632.
  • 3
    Lauer MS, Skarlatos S. Translational research for cardiovascular diseases at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: moving from bench to bedside and from bedside to community. Circulation. 2010; 121: 929933.
  • 4
    NIH Health Care Systems (HCS). Research Collaboratory. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-12–002.html. Accessed May 13, 2013.
  • 5
    Lieu TA, Au D, Krishnan JA, Moss M, Selker H, Harabin A, Taggart V, Connors A. Comparative effectiveness research in lung diseases and sleep disorders: recommendations from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2011; 184: 848856.
  • 6
    Shrank W. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's blueprint for rapid-cycle evaluation of new care and payment models. Health Aff. 2013; 32: 807812.
  • 7
    Comparative Effectiveness Research Portfolio. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/portfolios/comparative-effectiveness/index.html. Accessed May 23, 2013.
  • 8
    Research We Support. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/research-we-support./. Accessed May 23, 2013.
  • 9
    Hartung DM, Guise JM, Fagnan LJ, Davis MM, Stange KC. The role of practice-based research networks in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2012; 1: 4555.
  • 10
    Community-Based Participatory Research. Available at: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/methodology/community_based_participatory_research/index.aspx. Accessed May 23, 2013.
  • 11
    Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 464475.
  • 12
    NIH Health Care Systems Research CollaboratoryPragmatic Clinical Trials Demonstration Projects (UH2/UH3). Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-12–002.html. Accessed May 23, 2013.
  • 13
    CTSA Cosortium Coordinating Center (C4). Available at: https://http://www.ctsacentral.org./Accessed May 23, 2013.
  • 14
    Principles of Community Engagement. 2nd edn. Washington, DC: NIH Publication No. 11 -7782, 2011, pp. 35.
  • 15
    Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise JM, Santa J, Conway PH, Daudelin D, Morrato EH, Leslie LK. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient centered outcomes research. J Gen Int Med. 2012; 27: 985991.
  • 16
    Papadaki M, Hirsch G. Curing consortium fatigue. Sci Transl Med. 2012; 5(200): fs35.
  • 17
    Krishnan JA, Lindenauer PK, Au DH, Carson SS, Lee TA, McBurnie MA, Naureckas ET, Vollmer WM, Mularski RA. COPD outcomes-based network for clinical effectiveness and research translation. Stakeholder priorities for comparative effectiveness research in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a workshop report. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013; 187: 320326
  • 18
    Institute of Medicine (IOM). The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press 2013, pp. 8, 47.
  • 19
    Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 11451150.
  • 20
    Federal Register. Human subjects research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making. 2011; 76: 4451244531.
  • 21
    Selker HP, Strom BL, Ford DE, Meltzer DO, Pauker SG, Pincus HA, Rich EC, Tompkins C, Whitlock EP. White paper on CTSA consortium role in facilitating comparative effectiveness research. Clin Transl Sci. 2010; 3: 2937.
  • 22
    Selker H, Grossmann C, Adams A, Goldmann D, Dezii C, Meyer G, Roger V, Savitz L, Platt R. The Common Rule and Continuous Improvement in Health Care: a Learning Health System Perspective. Institute of Medicine, Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
  • 23
    Platt R, Grossman C, Selker HP. Evaluation as part of operations: reconciling the common rule and continuous improvement. In: Solomon MZ, Bonham AC, eds. Ethical Oversight of Learning Healthcare Systems. Special Report 43, No. 1. Garrison, NY: Hastings Center Report; 2013: S2S3.
  • 24
    Millum J, Menikoff J. Streamlining ethical review. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153: 655657.
  • 25
    Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research. JAMA. 2012; 307: 16361640.
  • 26
    Smith M, Saunders R, Stuckhardt L, McGinnis JM. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013, pp. 29, 294.
  • 27
    Hersh WR, Weiner MG, Embi PJ, Logan JR, Payne PRO, Bernstam EV, Lehmann HP, Hripcsak G, Hartzog TH, Cimino JJ, et al. Recommendations for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. In press.
  • 28
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011; 10(11)-EHC063-EF, pp. 1–4.
  • 29
    Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User's Guide. Vol. 12. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013, p. 2.