An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Shannon S. Carson, Christopher H. Goss, Sanjay R. Patel, Antonio Anzueto, David H. Au, Stuart Elborn, Joe K. Gerald, Lynn B. Gerald, Jeremy M. Kahn, Atul Malhotra, Richard A. Mularski, Kristin Riekert, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Terri E. Weaver, Jerry A. Krishnan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1253-1261
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Volume188
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 15 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Critical Care
Sleep
Thorax
Medicine
Lung
Research
Health Services Research
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Clinical Trials
Behavioral Sciences
Quality Improvement
Consensus
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Comparative effectiveness research
  • Efficacy research
  • Patient-centered outcomes research
  • Pragmatic trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

An official American thoracic society research statement : Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. / Carson, Shannon S.; Goss, Christopher H.; Patel, Sanjay R.; Anzueto, Antonio; Au, David H.; Elborn, Stuart; Gerald, Joe K.; Gerald, Lynn B.; Kahn, Jeremy M.; Malhotra, Atul; Mularski, Richard A.; Riekert, Kristin; Rubenfeld, Gordon D.; Weaver, Terri E.; Krishnan, Jerry A.

In: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 188, No. 10, 15.11.2013, p. 1253-1261.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carson, SS, Goss, CH, Patel, SR, Anzueto, A, Au, DH, Elborn, S, Gerald, JK, Gerald, LB, Kahn, JM, Malhotra, A, Mularski, RA, Riekert, K, Rubenfeld, GD, Weaver, TE & Krishnan, JA 2013, 'An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine', American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 188, no. 10, pp. 1253-1261. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201310-1790ST
Carson, Shannon S. ; Goss, Christopher H. ; Patel, Sanjay R. ; Anzueto, Antonio ; Au, David H. ; Elborn, Stuart ; Gerald, Joe K. ; Gerald, Lynn B. ; Kahn, Jeremy M. ; Malhotra, Atul ; Mularski, Richard A. ; Riekert, Kristin ; Rubenfeld, Gordon D. ; Weaver, Terri E. ; Krishnan, Jerry A. / An official American thoracic society research statement : Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. In: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 188, No. 10. pp. 1253-1261.
@article{6e443e2a70e54ca582f90c6426e33636,
title = "An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine",
abstract = "Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, {"}Can it work in optimal conditions?{"} The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, {"}Does it work in practice?{"} The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER.",
keywords = "Comparative effectiveness research, Efficacy research, Patient-centered outcomes research, Pragmatic trials",
author = "Carson, {Shannon S.} and Goss, {Christopher H.} and Patel, {Sanjay R.} and Antonio Anzueto and Au, {David H.} and Stuart Elborn and Gerald, {Joe K.} and Gerald, {Lynn B.} and Kahn, {Jeremy M.} and Atul Malhotra and Mularski, {Richard A.} and Kristin Riekert and Rubenfeld, {Gordon D.} and Weaver, {Terri E.} and Krishnan, {Jerry A.}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1164/rccm.201310-1790ST",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "188",
pages = "1253--1261",
journal = "American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "1073-449X",
publisher = "American Thoracic Society",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An official American thoracic society research statement

T2 - Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

AU - Carson, Shannon S.

AU - Goss, Christopher H.

AU - Patel, Sanjay R.

AU - Anzueto, Antonio

AU - Au, David H.

AU - Elborn, Stuart

AU - Gerald, Joe K.

AU - Gerald, Lynn B.

AU - Kahn, Jeremy M.

AU - Malhotra, Atul

AU - Mularski, Richard A.

AU - Riekert, Kristin

AU - Rubenfeld, Gordon D.

AU - Weaver, Terri E.

AU - Krishnan, Jerry A.

PY - 2013/11/15

Y1 - 2013/11/15

N2 - Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER.

AB - Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER.

KW - Comparative effectiveness research

KW - Efficacy research

KW - Patient-centered outcomes research

KW - Pragmatic trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887928927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887928927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1164/rccm.201310-1790ST

DO - 10.1164/rccm.201310-1790ST

M3 - Article

C2 - 24160906

AN - SCOPUS:84887928927

VL - 188

SP - 1253

EP - 1261

JO - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

JF - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

SN - 1073-449X

IS - 10

ER -