Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice

Abstract There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tom Briffa, Tanya Symons, Nikolajs Zeps, Nicola Straiton, William Odita Tarnow-Mordi, John Simes, Ian A. Harris, Melinda Cruz, Steven A. Webb, Edward Litton, Alistair Nichol, Christopher M. Williams
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-09-01
Series:Trials
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05566-1
id doaj-914c553f19f24c5789c4b960e9e9e523
record_format Article
spelling doaj-914c553f19f24c5789c4b960e9e9e5232021-09-19T11:44:04ZengBMCTrials1745-62152021-09-012211410.1186/s13063-021-05566-1Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practiceTom Briffa0Tanya Symons1Nikolajs Zeps2Nicola Straiton3William Odita Tarnow-Mordi4John Simes5Ian A. Harris6Melinda Cruz7Steven A. Webb8Edward Litton9Alistair Nichol10Christopher M. Williams11University of Western AustraliaUniversity of SydneyEpworth HealthCareUniversity of SydneyUniversity of SydneyUniversity of SydneyIngham InstituteUniversity of SydneyMonash UniversityFiona Stanley HospitalMonash UniversityUniversity of NewcastleAbstract There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment. This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05566-1Comparative effectivenessPragmaticTrialsHigh-quality evidenceClinical careEmbed
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Tom Briffa
Tanya Symons
Nikolajs Zeps
Nicola Straiton
William Odita Tarnow-Mordi
John Simes
Ian A. Harris
Melinda Cruz
Steven A. Webb
Edward Litton
Alistair Nichol
Christopher M. Williams
spellingShingle Tom Briffa
Tanya Symons
Nikolajs Zeps
Nicola Straiton
William Odita Tarnow-Mordi
John Simes
Ian A. Harris
Melinda Cruz
Steven A. Webb
Edward Litton
Alistair Nichol
Christopher M. Williams
Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
Trials
Comparative effectiveness
Pragmatic
Trials
High-quality evidence
Clinical care
Embed
author_facet Tom Briffa
Tanya Symons
Nikolajs Zeps
Nicola Straiton
William Odita Tarnow-Mordi
John Simes
Ian A. Harris
Melinda Cruz
Steven A. Webb
Edward Litton
Alistair Nichol
Christopher M. Williams
author_sort Tom Briffa
title Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
title_short Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
title_full Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
title_fullStr Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
title_sort normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice
publisher BMC
series Trials
issn 1745-6215
publishDate 2021-09-01
description Abstract There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment. This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system.
topic Comparative effectiveness
Pragmatic
Trials
High-quality evidence
Clinical care
Embed
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05566-1
work_keys_str_mv AT tombriffa normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT tanyasymons normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT nikolajszeps normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT nicolastraiton normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT williamoditatarnowmordi normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT johnsimes normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT ianaharris normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT melindacruz normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT stevenawebb normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT edwardlitton normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT alistairnichol normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
AT christophermwilliams normalisingcomparativeeffectivenesstrialsasclinicalpractice
_version_ 1717375527327629312