FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Volume 360:1925-1927 May 7, 2009 Number 19 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act gives comparative-effectiveness research (CER) a large boost in funding over the next 2 years. Despite a consensus that better information about the relative effectiveness of different medical interventions is needed to improve the quality and value of care, some view CER with skepticism. Recently, the Partnership to Improve Patient Care, a coalition of 36 industry, patient-advocacy, and clinician organizations, raised concerns that CER will not take adequate account of individual patient differences and may impede the development and adoption of improvements in medical care and "stymie progress in personalized medicine."¹

The controversy stems in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Source Information

Dr. Garber is a staff physician at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in Palo Alto, CA, and a professor of medicine, director of the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, and director of the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Dr. Tunis is the founder and director of the Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Cassel, C. K. (2009). Statistics and ethics: Models for strengthening protection of human subjects in clinical research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106: 22037-22038 [Full Text]  
• Levy, A., Harrigan, B., Johnston, K., Briggs, A. (2009). Comparative Effectiveness Research Through the Looking Glass. Med Decis Making 29: NP6-NP8 [Abstract]  
• Kiviniemi, M. T., Hay, J. L., James, A. S., Lipkus, I. M., Meissner, H. I., Stefanek, M., Studts, J. L., Bridges, J. F.P., Close, D. R., Erwin, D. O., Jones, R. M., Kaiser, K., Kash, K. M., Kelly, K. M., Craddock Lee, S. J., Purnell, J. Q., Siminoff, L. A., Vadaparampil, S. T., Wang, C. (2009). Decision Making about Cancer Screening: An Assessment of the State of the Science and a Suggested Research Agenda from the ASPO Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Communication Special Interest Group. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 18: 3133-3137 [Full Text]  
• Horning, S. J. (2009). Cancer Research and Privacy: The Problem With Being Joined at the Hip. JCO 27: 3879-3880 [Full Text]  
• Iglehart, J. K. (2009). Prioritizing Comparative-Effectiveness Research -- IOM Recommendations. NEJM 361: 325-328 [Full Text]