Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number620
JournalTrials
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Normalising comparative effectiveness trials as clinical practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this