Minimizing Bias Due to Confounding by Indication in Comparative Effectiveness Research
- 25 August 2010
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 304 (8), 897-898
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1205
Abstract
Health care reform has invigorated the genre of comparative effectiveness. With new congressional funding to identify which clinical strategies may work best, this research is poised to inform clinical care, health care policy, and the funding of health care. Although comparative effectiveness studies also include randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews, the expanded availability of large administrative databases and electronic medical records has provided new opportunities to conduct observational studies without the traditional burden of actually having to collect data with purpose. Observational studies of the health outcomes associated with clinical strategies—drug therapies, surgical procedures, and chronic disease management—generally take 1 of 2 forms, comparative effectiveness or comparative safety, which pose different challenges.1This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Myocardial infarction and stroke associated with diuretic based two drug antihypertensive regimens: population based case-control studyBMJ, 2010
- Alendronate and Atrial FibrillationThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Esterified Estrogens and Conjugated Equine Estrogens and the Risk of Venous ThrombosisJAMA, 2004
- Cerivastatin and Reports of Fatal RhabdomyolysisThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Assessment and Control for Confounding by Indication in Observational StudiesJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1999
- Diuretic Therapy for Hypertension and the Risk of Primary Cardiac ArrestThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1994