Abstract
When providing care, clinicians are expected to take note of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations based on the available evidence. However, guidelines may not apply to individual patients with comorbidities, as they are typically excluded from clinical trials. Guidelines also tend not to provide relevant evidence on risks, secondary effects and long-term outcomes. Querying the electronic health records of similar patients may for many provide an alternate source of evidence to inform decision-making. It is important to develop methods to support these personalized observational studies at the point-of-care, to understand when these methods may provide valid results, and to validate and integrate these findings with those from clinical trials.
| Language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages | 191-197 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 May 2015 |
Fingerprint
Bibliographical note
Copyright the Author(s) 2015. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.Keywords
- cohort studies
- comparative effectiveness
- electronic health records
- personalized prognosis
Cite this
}
Bringing cohort studies to the bedside : framework for a 'green button' to support clinical decision-making. / Gallego, Blanca; Walter, Scott R.; Day, Richard O.; Dunn, Adam G.; Sivaraman, Vijay; Shah, Nigam; Longhurst, Christopher A.; Coiera, Enrico.
In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, 01.05.2015, p. 191-197.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Bringing cohort studies to the bedside
T2 - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
AU - Gallego, Blanca
AU - Walter, Scott R.
AU - Day, Richard O.
AU - Dunn, Adam G.
AU - Sivaraman, Vijay
AU - Shah, Nigam
AU - Longhurst, Christopher A.
AU - Coiera, Enrico
N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2015. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
PY - 2015/5/1
Y1 - 2015/5/1
N2 - When providing care, clinicians are expected to take note of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations based on the available evidence. However, guidelines may not apply to individual patients with comorbidities, as they are typically excluded from clinical trials. Guidelines also tend not to provide relevant evidence on risks, secondary effects and long-term outcomes. Querying the electronic health records of similar patients may for many provide an alternate source of evidence to inform decision-making. It is important to develop methods to support these personalized observational studies at the point-of-care, to understand when these methods may provide valid results, and to validate and integrate these findings with those from clinical trials.
AB - When providing care, clinicians are expected to take note of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations based on the available evidence. However, guidelines may not apply to individual patients with comorbidities, as they are typically excluded from clinical trials. Guidelines also tend not to provide relevant evidence on risks, secondary effects and long-term outcomes. Querying the electronic health records of similar patients may for many provide an alternate source of evidence to inform decision-making. It is important to develop methods to support these personalized observational studies at the point-of-care, to understand when these methods may provide valid results, and to validate and integrate these findings with those from clinical trials.
KW - cohort studies
KW - comparative effectiveness
KW - electronic health records
KW - personalized prognosis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930520136&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/568612
U2 - 10.2217/cer.15.12
DO - 10.2217/cer.15.12
M3 - Review article
VL - 4
SP - 191
EP - 197
JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
SN - 2042-6305
IS - 3
ER -