• 1
    Basu A. Individualization at the heart of comparative effectiveness research: the time for i-CER has come. Med Dec Making. 2009; 29(6): NP9NP11.
  • 2
    Tunis SR. A clinical research strategy to support shared decision making. Health Aff. 2005; 24(1): 180184.
  • 3
    Institute of Medicine Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research P. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Rearch. Washington , DC : National Academies Press; 2009.
  • 4
    Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and Congress. Washington , DC : Department of Health and Human Services, June 2009. (Accessed May 1, 2011, at
  • 5
    Sox HC, Helfand M, Grimshaw J, Dickersin K, Tovey D, Knottnerus A, Tugwell P, and The PLoS Medicine Editors. Comparative effectiveness research: challenges for medical journals. Med Dec Making. 2010; 30(3): 301303.
  • 6
    Helfand M. Using evidence reports: progress and challenges in evidence-based decision making. Health Aff. 2005; 24(1): 123127.
  • 7
    Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff. 2010; 29(10): 18341841.
  • 8
    Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ Series Paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care program. J Clin Epidemiol.2010; 63(5): 491501.
  • 9
    Rowe G, Rawsthorne D, Scarpello T, Dainty JR. Public engagement in research funding: a study of public capabilities and engagement methodology. Publ Understanding Sci. 2010; 19(2): 225239.
  • 10
    Westfall JM, VanVorst RF, Main DS, Herbert C. Community-based participatory research in practice-based research networks. Ann Fam Med. 2006; 4: 814.
  • 11
    Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Rhodes S, Samuel-Hodge C, Maty S, Lux L, et al. Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 99 . Rockville , MD : Agency for Health Care Research and Quality; 2004.
  • 12
    Lieberman D. Measuring utilization of colonoscopy in clinical practice. In: TalleyNJ, LockeGR, Saito-LoftusYA, eds. Epidemiology of Gastroenterological Diseases. Oxford , UK : Blackwell; 2007:164169.
  • 13
    Tapp H, Dulin M. The science of primary health-care improvement: potential and use of community-based participatory research by practice-based research networks for translation of research into practice. Exp Biol Med. 2010; 235(3): 290299.
  • 14
    Entwistle V, Calnan M, Dieppe P. Consumer involvement in setting the health services research agenda: persistent questions of value. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13(Suppl 3): 7681.
  • 15
    Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, Milne R, Buchanan P, Gabbay J, Gyte G, Oakley A, Stein K. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8(III): 1146.
  • 16
    Nilsen ES, Nadeau L, John L, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; Art. No.: CD004563. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004563.pub2.(3).
  • 17
    Lenaghan J, New B, Mitchell E. Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens’ juries BMJ. 1996; 312: 15911593.
  • 18
    Gooberman-Hill R, Horwood J, Calnan M. Citizens’ juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome. Health Expect. 2008; 11: 272281.
  • 19
    Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008; 11: 282293.
  • 20
    Smith G, Wales C. The theory and practice of citizens’ juries. Pol Pract. 1999; 27: 295308.
  • 21
    Helfand M. AHRQ series editorial: public involvement improves methods development in comparative effectiveness reviews. J Clin Epidemiol.2010; 63(5): 471473.
  • 22
    Helfand M. Sources of evidence: a perspective from an evidence-based practice center. In: FronstinP, ed. Will Wider Use of Evidence-Based Medicine Significantly Enhance Health Care Quality and Affordability? Implications for Consumer-Driven Health Benefits. Washington , DC : Employee Benefits Research Institute. ISBN 0-86643-099-7;2003.
  • 23
    Cohen AM, Hersh WR. Criticisms of evidence-based medicine. Evid-Based Cardiovasc Med. 2004; 8(3): 197198.
  • 24
    Steinberg EP, Luce BR. Evidence based? Caveat emptor! Health Aff. 2005; 24(1): 8092.
  • 25
    Helfand M. Cochrane and Drug Class Reviews. Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group Newsletter. Oxford , UK : The UK Cochrane Centre; 2004.
  • 26
    Lohr K. Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004; 16(1): 918.
  • 27
    Helfand M, Morton S, Guallar E, Mulrow C. Challenges of summarizing better information for better health: the evidence-based practice center experience. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142(12 Pt 2): 10331034.
  • 28
    Fenwick E, Palmer S, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Abrams K, Sutton A. An iterative Bayesian approach to health technology assessment: application to a policy of preoperative optimization for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Med Dec Making. 2006; 26(5): 480496.
  • 29
    Griffin S, Welton NJ, Claxton K. Exploring the research decision space: the expected value of information for sequential research designs. Med Dec Making. 2010; 30(2): 155162.
  • 30
    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Dec Making. 2008; 28(1): 2132.
  • 31
    Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Dec Making. 2007; 27(2): 112127.
  • 32
    Conti S, Claxton K. Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design. Med Dec Making. 2009; 29(6): 643660.
  • 33
    Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci Transl Med. 2010; 2(37): 37cm18.
  • 34
    Norris SL, Atkins D. Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 142(12 Pt 2): 11121119.
  • 35
    Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff. 2005; 24(1): 128132.
  • 36
    Eden J. Institute of Medicine Committee on Reviewing Evidence to Identify Highly Effective Clinical Services. Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation. Washington , DC : National Academic Press; 2008.
  • 37
    Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical medicine: II. The limitations of randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 1983; 99(4): 544550.
  • 38
    Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question [editorial]. BMJ. 1997; 315(7123): 1636.
  • 39
    Garrison LP, Jr., Neumann PJ, Radensky P, Walcoff SD. A flexible approach to evidentiary standards for comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010; 29(10): 18121817.
  • 40
    Dreyer NA, Tunis SR, Berger M, Ollendorf D, Mattox P, Gliklich R. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2010; 29(10): 18181825.
  • 41
    Vandenbroucke J. The HRT controversy: observational studies and RCTs fall in line. Lancet. 2009; 373(9671): 12331235.
  • 42
    Kravitz RL, Duan N, Braslow J. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Quart. 2004; 82: 661687.
  • 43
    Wang PS, Ulbricht CM, Schoenbaum M. Improving mental health treatments through comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff. 2009; 28(3): 783791.
  • 44
    Greenfield S, Kravitz R, Duan N, Kaplan S. Heterogeneity of treatment effects: implications for guidelines, payment, and quality assessment. AmJ Med. 2004; 120(4): S30S39.
  • 45
    Rothwell PM. Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients Lancet. 1995; 24(345): 16161619.
  • 46
    Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007; 298(10): 12091212.
  • 47
    Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, Hayward RA, Altman DG. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010; 12(1): 85.
  • 48
    Rothwell PM. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet. 2005; 365: 176186.
  • 49
    Conti R, Veenstra DL, Armstrong K, Lesko LJ, Grosse SD. Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities. Med Dec Making. 2010; 30(3): 328340.
  • 50
    Nick TG, Saldaña SN. Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics: statistical challenges in design and analysis. Maths Stats. 2009; 22(1): 5662.
  • 51
    Groot Koerkamp B, Weinstein M, Stijnen T, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink M. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Dec Making. 2010; 30(2): 194205.
  • 52
    Califf RM, Woodlief LH, Harrell FE. Selection of thrombolytic therapy for individual patients: development of a clinical model. Am Heart J. 1997; 133: 630639.
  • 53
    Gabler NB, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore JG, Ganiats TG, Kravitz RL. Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge Trials. 2009; 10: 43.
  • 54
    Guyatt G, Sackett D, Taylor DW. Determining optimal therapy–randomized trials in individual patients. N Engl J Med. 1986; 314(14): 889892.
  • 55
    Zucker DR, Schmid CH, McIntosh MW, D’Agostino RB, Selker HP, Lau J. Combining single patient (N-of-1) trials to estimate population treatment effects and to evaluate individual patient responses to treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(4): 401410.
  • 56
    Sheridan S, Pignone M, Mulrow C. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18(12): 10391052.
  • 57
    Sheridan SL, Griffith JM, Behrend L, Gizlice Z, Jianwen Cai, Pignone MP. Effect of adding a values clarification exercise to a decision aid on heart disease prevention: a randomized trial. Med Dec Making. 2010; 30(4): E28E39.
  • 58
    Paradise JL, Bluestone CD, Bachman RZ, Colborn DK, Bernard BS, Taylor FH, Rogers KD, Schwarzbach RH, Stool SE, Friday GA, et al. Efficacy of tonsillectomy for recurrent throat infection in severely affected children. N Engl J Med. 1984; 310(11): 674683.
  • 59
    Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Crawford MH, Blaustein AS, Deedwania PC, Zoble RG, Wexler LF, Kleiger RE, Pepine CJ, Ferry DR, et al. Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338(18): 17851792.
  • 60
    Lavori PW, Dawson R. Adaptive treatment strategies in chronic disease. Ann Rev Med. 2008; 59: 443453.
  • 61
    Crockskerry P. The cognitive imperative. Thinking about how we think. Acad Emerg Med. 2000; 11: 12231231.
  • 62
    Ditto PH, Jacobson JA, Smucker WD, Danks JH, Fagerlin A. Context changes choices: a prospective study of the effects of hospitalization on life-sustaining treatment preferences. Med Dec Making. 2006; 26(4): 313322.
  • 63
    Gorman PN. Measuring the care of the patient in context. Med Dec Making. 2007; 27(6): 724725.
  • 64
    Pauker SG. Coronary artery surgery: the use of decision analysis. Ann Intern Med.1976; 85: 818.
  • 65
    Arrow KJ. Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd Edition. New York, London, & Sydney : John Wiley & Sons; 1963.
  • 66
    Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008; 300(4): 436438.
  • 67
    Elwyn G, Frosch D, Volandes AE, Edwards A, Montori VM. Investing in deliberation: a definition and classification of decision support interventions for people facing difficult health decisions. Med Dec Making. 2010; 30(6): 701711.
  • 68
    Man-Son-Hing M, Gage BF, Montgomery AA, Howitt A, Thomson R, Devereaux PJ, Protheroe J, Fahey T, Armstrong D, Laupacis A. Preference-based antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: implications for clinical decision making. Med Dec Making. 2005; 25(5): 548559.
  • 69
    Garber AM. A menu without prices. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148(12): 964966.
  • 70
    Garber AM, Sox HC. The role of costs in comparative effectiveness research. Health Aff.29(10): 18051811.
  • 71
    Levy A, Harrigan B, Johnston K, Briggs A. Comparative effectiveness research through the looking glass. Med Dec Making. 2009; 29(6): NP6NP8.
  • 72
    American College of Physicians. Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 956961.
  • 73
    Shah ND, Mullan RJ, Breslin M, Yawn BP, Ting HH, Montori VM. Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications. Med Care. 2010; 48(6): S153S158.
  • 74
    Fraenkel L, Fried TR. Individualized medical decision making: necessary, achievable, but not yet attainable. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170(6): 566569.
  • 75
    Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, Maron DJ, Zhang Z, Jurkovitz C, Zhang W, Hartigan PM, Lewis C, Veledar E, et al. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(7): 677687.
  • 76
    Conway PH, Clancy C. Charting a path from comparative effectiveness funding to improved patient-centered health care. JAMA. 2010; 303(10): 985986.
  • 77
    Shewhart WA. Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Washington , DC : Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture; 1939.
  • 78
    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(1): 2937.