Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Technology Assessment

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services

Part of the book series: Health Services Research ((HEALTHSR))

  • 959 Accesses

Abstract

Over the past several years, health technology assessment (HTA) and, more recently, comparative effectiveness research (CER) have become routinely deployed in various jurisdictions around the world. Despite some overlap in the ways that HTA and CER are used in making decisions about the use of health-care technologies, the relationship between these two sets of practices is still quite tenuous. There has been much debate about how these practices should be defined, what methodologies they should deploy in answering specific questions, and what standards should be used in adjudicating evidence about the utility of health-care interventions. In contrast to much of the health policy literature that attempts to prescribe what HTA and CER ought to be, the present chapter provides a historical–empirical approach to understanding the state of play of the HTA-CER nexus. In so doing, it explores issues presented by various research designs, including clinical trials, observational studies, systematic review, and meta-analysis, the advent of engagement practices, the emergent themes of patient-centeredness and personalization, and the problem of assessing the clinical and economic value of health technologies. After reviewing these issues, it moves onto examining one specific project in the United States, which serves to show how CER can be used in HTA, as well as how some of the more general problems discussed in the extant literature are dealt with in a more routine setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 279.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;82(1):37–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Banta D, Behney CJ. Office of technology assessment health program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:28–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Banta D, Jonsson E. History of HTA: introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Banta HD, Perry S. A history of ISTAHC. A personal perspective on its first 10 years. International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(3):430–53; discussion 54–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basch E, Abernethy AP, Mullins CD, Reeve BB, Smith ML, Coons SJ, et al. Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Basu A, Jena AB, Philipson TJ. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending. J Health Econ. 2011;30(4):695–706.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Becla L, Lunshof JE, Gurwitz D, Schulte In den Baumen T, Westerhoff HV, Lange BM, et al. Health technology assessment in the era of personalized health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):118–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benson III A, Lyerly K. Improving medical decisions through comparative effectiveness research: cancer as a case study. Arlington: Friends of Cancer Research; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL, Luckman T. The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books; 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, Johnson ML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report – Part I. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1044–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin JA, Cepeda MS. Some methodological points to consider when performing systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials. 2012;9(1):27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bimber B. The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment. Albany: The State University of New York Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum H, Slutsky JR. Guiding comparative effectiveness research – a US perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):839–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Blume SS. Assessing health technologies in a changing world. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 Suppl 1:276–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski L, Thévenot L. On justification: economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: a participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(1):135–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite RS, Concato J, Chang CC, Roberts MS, Justice AC. A framework for tailoring clinical guidelines to comorbidity at the point of care. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2361–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):832–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter D. Reputation and power: organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation in the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalkidou K, Anderson G. Comparative effectiveness research: international experiences and implications for the United States. Washington, DC: Academy Health; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, Ismaila A, Santaguida P, Smith D, Whitlock E, Wilt T, Moher D. Chapter 7: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. p. 112–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancy C, Collins FS. Patient-centered outcomes research institute: the intersection of science and health care. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(37):37–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):269–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research – some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise JM, Santa J, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA, Gaziano JM, Aslan M, Huang GD. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med. 2010;123(12 Suppl 1):e16–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Decis Making. 2010;30(3):328–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, Esmail LC, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012a;1(2):181–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deverka PA, Schully SD, Ishibe N, Carlson JJ, Freedman A, Goddard KA, et al. Stakeholder assessment of the evidence for cancer genomic tests: insights from three case studies. Genet Med. 2012b;14(7):656–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1818–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel E. Stakeholder representations in genomics. In: Atkinson P, Glasner P, Lock E, editors. Handbook of genomics and society: mapping the new genomic era. New York: Routledge; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S. Inclusion: the politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • EUnetHTA. Common questions – health technology assessment. What is health technology assessment? http://www.eunethta.eu/faq/Category%201-0#t287n73. Accessed 15 Jan 2013.

  • Facey K, Topfer L, Chan L. INAHTA Health Technology Assessment (HTA) glossary. Stockholm: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment; 2006. Available at: http://inahta.episerverhotell.net/upload/HTA_resources/Edu_INAHTA_glossary_July_2006_final.pdf

  • Faulkner A. ‘Strange bedfellows’ in the laboratory of the NHS? An analysis of the new science of health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Soc Health Illn. 1997;19(19b):183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner A. In the sociomedical laboratory of citizen health: exploring science, technology, governance and engagement in prostate cancer detection in the UK. Working Paper Series, No. 74. Cardiff: Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (FCC-CER). Report to the president and the congress. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984. (Quoted in Einsiedel 2009, p. 187)

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber A, Meltzer D. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research. In: Implementing comparative effectiveness research: priorities, methods, and impact. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2009. p. 15–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard KA, Knaus WA, Whitlock E, Lyman GH, Feigelson HS, Schully SD, et al. Building the evidence base for decision making in cancer genomic medicine using comparative effectiveness research. Genet Med. 2012;14(7):633–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goeree R, He J, O'Reilly D, Tarride JE, Xie F, Lim M, et al. Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: a systematic review of approaches for assessment and application. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;3:89–104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman CS. HTA 101: introduction to health technology assessment. Falls Church: The Lewin Group; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman CS, Ahn R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform. 1999;56(1–3):97–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene JA. Swimming upstream: comparative effectiveness research in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(12):979–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt G, Sackett D, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S. Determining optimal therapy – randomized trials in individual patients. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(14):889–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington SE. Incentivizing comparative effectiveness research. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Research Paper; 1 Jan 2011. Available at: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/Incentivizing_CER_3-30-11.pdf

  • Helfand M, Tunis S, Whitlock EP, Pauker SG, Basu A, Chilingerian J, et al. A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research. Clin Transl Sci. 2011;4(3):188–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Herdman RC, Jensen JE. The OTA story: the agency perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1997;54(2–3):131–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlatky MA, Douglas PS, Cook NL, Wells B, Benjamin EJ, Dickersin K, et al. Future directions for cardiovascular disease comparative effectiveness research: report of a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(7):569–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgetts K, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. What counts and how to count it: physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(12):2191–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR. How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1834–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunink MG. Decision making in the face of uncertainty and resource constraints: examples from trauma imaging. Radiology. 2005;235(2):375–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Husereau D. Sentence first, verdict afterwards: using value of information analysis to inform decisions about pharmacogenomic test adoption and research. Curr Pharmacogenomics Person Med. 2010;8:167–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AP, Sikich NJ, Evans G, Evans W, Giacomini M, Glendining M, et al. Health technology assessment: a comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(2):141–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • JOP. The southwest oncology group: new processes to coordinate increasingly complex clinical trials. J Oncol Pract. 2008;4(2):78–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamerow D. PCORI: odd name, important job, potential trouble. BMJ. 2011;342:d2635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keating P, Cambrosio A. Cancer on trial: oncology as a new style of practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SY, Solomon DH. Use of administrative claims data for comparative effectiveness research of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Arthrit Res Therapy. 2011;13(5):129–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2012;10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson EB. N-of-1 trials: a new future? J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):891–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau EC, Mowat FS, Kelsh MA, Legg JC, Engel-Nitz NM, Watson HN, et al. Use of electronic medical records (EMR) for oncology outcomes research: assessing the comparability of EMR information to patient registry and health claims data. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:259–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lehoux P. The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S, Hivon M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30(4):603–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pen C. Is there a “continental” view of health economics evaluation? Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:121–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N, Jorgensen B, Brouwers MC, Easty T, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):299–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce B, Cohen RS. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:33–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:206–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):256–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Manchikanti L, Derby R, Wolfer L, Singh V, Datta S, Hirsch JA. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 7: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Pain Physician. 2009;12(6):929–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Helm 2nd S, Parr AT, Hirsch JA. The impact of comparative effectiveness research on interventional pain management: evolution from Medicare Modernization Act to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Pain Physician. 2011;14(3):E249–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markussen R, Olesen F. Rhetorical authority in STS: reflections on a study of IT implementation at a hospital ward. Sci Cult. 2009;16(3):267–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, & Modernization Act of 2003, §1013; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merlin T, Farah C, Schubert C, Mitchell A, Hiller JE, Ryan P. Assessing personalized medicines in Australia: a national framework for reviewing codependent technologies. Med Decis Making. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers E, Sanders GD, Ravi D, Matchar D, Havrilesky L, Samsa G, Powers B, McBroom A, Musty M, Gray R. Erinoff EG. Evaluating the potential use of modeling and value-of-information analysis for future research prioritization within the evidence-based practice center program. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 11-EHC030-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreira T. Entangled evidence: knowledge making in systematic reviews in healthcare. Soc Health Illn. 2007;29(2):180–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreira T. The transformation of contemporary health care: the market, the laboratory, and the forum. New York: Routledge; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nass SJ, Moses HL, Mendelsohn J, editors. A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health (NIH). Department of Health and Human Services. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Supporting Comparative Effectiveness Research; 2010. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/reports/plans/pdf20100610/NIH_Comparative%20Effectiveness%20%20June%202010.pdf

  • National Cancer Institute (NCI). NCI guidelines for ARRA research and research infrastructure grand opportunities: comparative effectiveness research in genomic and personalized medicine; 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/PublishedContent/Files/PDF/recovery/004_cer_personalized_medicine.pdf

  • Neumann PJ. What we talk about when we talk about health care costs. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):585–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke K. An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. J R Soc Med. 2007;100(12):579–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Development of medical technology, opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Rationale: working definition of patient-centered outcomes research; 2011. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/images/PCOR_Rationale.pdf

  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). 2011 annual report; 2012. Available at: http://www.pcori.org/assets/AnnualReport.pdf

  • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), §6301; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purmonen TT, Pankalainen E, Turunen JH, Asseburg C, Martikainen JA. Short-course adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in early stage breast cancer in Finland: cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis based on the 5-year follow-up results of the FinHer Trial. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(3):344–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey S, Crowley J, Baker L, Barlow B, Burke W, Garrison L, Veenstra D, Tunis S. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics (CANCERGEN). Poster session presented at: the Inaugural Meeting of the Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Network (GAPPNet™): A National Collaboration for Realizing the Promise of Genomics in Health Care and Disease Prevention; 2009 Oct 29–30; Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Tunis S, Baker L, Crowley J, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34(1):1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey SD, Veenstra D, Tunis SR, Garrison L, Crowley JJ, Baker LH. How comparative effectiveness research can help advance ‘personalized medicine’ in cancer treatment. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2259–68.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner R, Eden J, Wolman D, et al., editors. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray T. CancerGen’s First Comparative Effectiveness Trial to study oncotype DX in node-positive breast cancer. Pharmacogenomics Reporter [Serial on the Internet]. 2009 [cited 21 Oct 2009]. Available from: http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/cancergens-first-comparative-effectiveness-trial-study-oncotype-dx-node-positive

  • Retel VP, Joore MA, Linn SC, Rutgers EJ, van Harten WH. Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Roland M, Torgerson DJ. What are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316(7127):285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):143–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scoggins JF, Ramsey SD. A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(17):1371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, Gerrits CM, Kantor E, Bao Y, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith SR. Preface. Med Care. 2007;45(10s2):s1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan SD, Watkins J, Sweet B, Ramsey SD. Health technology assessment in health-care decisions in the United States. Value Health. 2009;12:S39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SWOG. History. http://swog.org/visitors/history.asp. Accessed 22 Nov 2012.

  • Teutsch SM, Berger ML, Weinstein MC. Comparative effectiveness: asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24(1):128–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thariani R, Veenstra DL, Carlson JJ, Garrison LP, Ramsey S. Paying for personalized care: cancer biomarkers and comparative effectiveness. Mol Oncol. 2012a;6(2):260–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thariani R, Wong W, Carlson JJ, Garrison L, Ramsey S, Deverka PA, et al. Prioritization in comparative effectiveness research: the CANCERGEN experience. Med Care. 2012b;50(5):388–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Trosman JR, Van Bebber SL, Phillips KA. Health technology assessment and private payers’ coverage of personalized medicine. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(3 Suppl):18s–24s.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tunis SR, Benner J, McClellan M. Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med. 2010;29(19):1963–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tunis SR, Turkelson C. Using health technology assessment to identify gaps in evidence and inform study design for comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4256–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • University of Michigan. U-M gets $63 million NIH grant for SWOG cancer trials network [press release]. 2010 Apr 12. http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/news/swog-grant10.shtml. Accessed 31 July 2012.

  • Viswanathan M, Ansari M, Berkman N, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters M, Santaguida PL, Shamliyan T, Tsertsvadze A, Treadwell J. Chapter 5: Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. P. 112–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. Chapter 2. Identifying, selecting, and refining topics. In: Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(12)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. p. 15–31. (See also J Clin Epi 2010 article, published in edited form).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky GR. Implementing the MMA. Health Financ Manage. 2004;58(6):30. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson E, Abrams K. From evidence-based economics to economics-based evidence: using systematic review to inform the design of future research. In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, Marsh K, Donaldson C, editors. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. 2nd ed. Oxford: BMJ Books; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong WB, Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Garrison Jr LP, Veenstra DL. The value of comparative effectiveness research: projected return on investment of the RxPONDER trial (SWOG S1007). Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(6):1117–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. A quick reference compendium of selected key terms used in the world health report 2000. Geneva: WHO; 2000. http://who.int/health-systems-performance/docs/whr_2000_glossary.doc. Accessed 21 July 2008 (quoted in Einsiedel 2009, p. 187).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel, Room 103, H3A 1X1, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Andrew S. Hoffman

  2. Department of Social Science in Medicine, McGill University, 845 Sherbrooke St. W., H3A 2T5, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Alberto Cambrosio

  3. Department of Health Administration, University of Montreal, 2900 boul. Édouard-Montpetit, H3T 1J4, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Renaldo Battista

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Cambrosio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Renaldo Battista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Hoffman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dalhousie University, Community Health & Epidemiology, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    Adrian Levy

  2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Boris Sobolev

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hoffman, A.S., Cambrosio, A., Battista, R. (2016). Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Technology Assessment. In: Levy, A., Sobolev, B. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness Research in Health Services. Health Services Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7600-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7600-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7599-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7600-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation