Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research

Sean R. Tunis, Mike Clarke, Sarah L. Gorst, Elizabeth Gargon, Jane M. Blazeby, Douglas G. Altman, Paula R. Williamson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Policy makers have clearly indicated - through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute - that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-205
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Outcome Assessment
Comparative Effectiveness Research
Administrative Personnel
Health Care Costs
Clinical Trials
Delivery of Health Care
Research

Keywords

  • clinical trials
  • clinician-reported outcomes
  • comparative effectiveness
  • patient-centered outcomes
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • quality of life
  • reimbursement science
  • research methods
  • research standards
  • research waste

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Tunis, S. R., Clarke, M., Gorst, S. L., Gargon, E., Blazeby, J. M., Altman, D. G., & Williamson, P. R. (2016). Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 5(2), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0007

Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. / Tunis, Sean R.; Clarke, Mike; Gorst, Sarah L.; Gargon, Elizabeth; Blazeby, Jane M.; Altman, Douglas G.; Williamson, Paula R.

In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 01.03.2016, p. 193-205.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tunis, SR, Clarke, M, Gorst, SL, Gargon, E, Blazeby, JM, Altman, DG & Williamson, PR 2016, 'Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research', Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 193-205. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0007
Tunis, Sean R. ; Clarke, Mike ; Gorst, Sarah L. ; Gargon, Elizabeth ; Blazeby, Jane M. ; Altman, Douglas G. ; Williamson, Paula R. / Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research. In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2016 ; Vol. 5, No. 2. pp. 193-205.
@article{9fd1d445d2d44982bedb7a52f142ec6a,
title = "Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research",
abstract = "Policy makers have clearly indicated - through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute - that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.",
keywords = "clinical trials, clinician-reported outcomes, comparative effectiveness, patient-centered outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, reimbursement science, research methods, research standards, research waste",
author = "Tunis, {Sean R.} and Mike Clarke and Gorst, {Sarah L.} and Elizabeth Gargon and Blazeby, {Jane M.} and Altman, {Douglas G.} and Williamson, {Paula R.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2217/cer-2015-0007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "193--205",
journal = "Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research",
issn = "2042-6305",
publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research

AU - Tunis, Sean R.

AU - Clarke, Mike

AU - Gorst, Sarah L.

AU - Gargon, Elizabeth

AU - Blazeby, Jane M.

AU - Altman, Douglas G.

AU - Williamson, Paula R.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Policy makers have clearly indicated - through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute - that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.

AB - Policy makers have clearly indicated - through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute - that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.

KW - clinical trials

KW - clinician-reported outcomes

KW - comparative effectiveness

KW - patient-centered outcomes

KW - patient-reported outcomes

KW - quality of life

KW - reimbursement science

KW - research methods

KW - research standards

KW - research waste

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961785309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961785309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/cer-2015-0007

DO - 10.2217/cer-2015-0007

M3 - Article

C2 - 26930385

AN - SCOPUS:84961785309

VL - 5

SP - 193

EP - 205

JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

SN - 2042-6305

IS - 2

ER -