Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 16

1.

Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research.

Ross JS, Gross CP, Krumholz HM.

Am J Public Health. 2012 Jan;102(1):72-80. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300187. Epub 2011 Nov 28.

2.

Informatics in action: lessons learned in comparative effectiveness research.

Hirsch BR, Giffin RB, Esmail LC, Tunis SR, Abernethy AP, Murphy SB.

Cancer J. 2011 Jul-Aug;17(4):235-8. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0b013e31822c3944. Review.

PMID:
21799331
3.

Implications of the principle of question propagation for comparative-effectiveness and "data mining" research.

Djulbegovic M, Djulbegovic B.

JAMA. 2011 Jan 19;305(3):298-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.2013. No abstract available.

PMID:
21245185
4.

Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines.

Poonacha TK, Go RS.

J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 10;29(2):186-91. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6414. Epub 2010 Dec 13.

PMID:
21149653
5.

Using science to improve the nation's health system: NIH's commitment to comparative effectiveness research.

Lauer MS, Collins FS.

JAMA. 2010 Jun 2;303(21):2182-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.726. No abstract available.

PMID:
20516419
6.

Comparative effectiveness reviews and the impact of funding bias.

Gartlehner G, Fleg A.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;63(6):589-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.004. No abstract available.

PMID:
20434022
7.

Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications.

Hochman M, McCormick D.

JAMA. 2010 Mar 10;303(10):951-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.240. Erratum in: JAMA. 2010 Apr 7;303(13):1257.

PMID:
20215609
8.

Stimulus funds force hard look at comparative effectiveness research.

Tuma RS.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 5;101(15):1036-9. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp242. Epub 2009 Jul 28. No abstract available.

PMID:
19638502
9.

Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change.

Luce BR, Kramer JM, Goodman SN, Connor JT, Tunis S, Whicher D, Schwartz JS.

Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 4;151(3):206-9. Epub 2009 Jun 30. No abstract available.

PMID:
19567619
10.

Explaining pragmatic trials to pragmatic policy-makers.

Maclure M.

CMAJ. 2009 May 12;180(10):1001-3. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090076. Epub 2009 Apr 16. No abstract available.

11.

A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers.

Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):464-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011.

PMID:
19348971
12.

Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research.

Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH.

Circulation. 2009 Mar 17;119(10):1442-52. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.742775. Review. No abstract available.

13.

Mixed methods, mixed methodology health services research in practice.

Johnstone PL.

Qual Health Res. 2004 Feb;14(2):259-71.

PMID:
14768461
14.

Trends in the aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life.

Earle CC, Neville BA, Landrum MB, Ayanian JZ, Block SD, Weeks JC.

J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):315-21.

PMID:
14722041
15.
16.

Supplemental Content

Support Center