Comparative Effectiveness Research: Moving Medical Oncology Forward

Hirsch, Bradford R.; Zafar, S. Yousuf

doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2013.08.005

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 IV methods are becoming increasingly relevant particularly in the field of oncology where CER plays an important role in improving clinical practice. 2,10 The US Food and Drug Administration has already established a framework to incorporate and optimize the use of CER-also named realworld evidence (RWE)-for initiatives such as the approval of drugs for new indications. 11 Health technology assessment agencies such as the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence have also expressed their receptivity to using RWE in making decisions regarding the true value of drugs and technologies in routine practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Instrumental Variable Analyses for Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness in Empirical Applications of Oncology: A Systematic Review

Thomson

Blommaert

et al. 2023

JCO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE This systematic review aims to characterize the use and trends of instrumental variables (IVs) in oncology research, assess the quality and completeness of IV reporting, and evaluate the agreement and interpretation of IV results in comparison with other techniques used for determining comparative effectiveness in observational research. METHODS We performed a systematic search of observational empirical oncology papers evaluating the comparative effectiveness of cancer treatments using IV methods. EMBASE and MEDLINE (through June 2021) were used for a keyword search; Scopus and Web of Science were used for a citation search. Publication details and characteristics of IV analysis and reporting were extracted from each study to examine the uptake and quality of IV applications. RESULTS Sixty-five empirical papers were identified from February 2001 through June 2021. Geographic variation (50.8%) was the most common type of IV used, and the majority of IV applications constructed binary instruments (53.8%). Concurrent analyses using another non-IV method to adjust for confounding were conducted in 56 (86.2%) studies, 17 (30.4%) of which produced results divergent from IV approaches. We observed a modest uptake of IV methods between 2011 and 2021 together with its dissemination, which remained fairly limited to the United States (76.9%). The quality and completeness of IV reporting varied greatly. The underlying assumptions required for a valid IV analysis were only accounted for in full by 20 (30.8%) studies. CONCLUSION There are limited use and variable quality of IV analyses in oncology. Future research should look to establish standards to better facilitate the quality, transparency, and completeness of IV reporting in this setting.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%