Which design for which question? An exploration toward a translation table for comparative effectiveness research.

In this paper, we explore the relative value that different methods offer in answering some stereotypical comparative effectiveness research questions with the goal of informing development of a 'translation table'--a selection tool for choosing appropriate methods for specific comparative effectiveness research questions. This paper was written as a parallel effort to Greenfield and Kaplan (also in this volume) to support the endeavor described in the manuscript by Tunis et al. (also in this volume). Originally based on four cases, the current article has been shortened to two cases for the current discussion. These cases represent research priorities proposed to orient the work of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, comparative clinical effectiveness and comparative health services.

[1]  Clifford W Colwell,et al.  Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism* American College of Chest Physicians Evidence- Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) , 2008 .

[2]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[3]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Validity of composite end points in clinical trials , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Steven Kurtz,et al.  Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  J. Danesh,et al.  Prevention of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis with low dose aspirin: Pulmonary Embolism Prevention (PEP) trial , 2000, The Lancet.

[6]  G. Karthikeyan,et al.  American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for venous thromboembolism prevention in hip and knee arthroplasty differ: what are the implications for clinicians and patients? , 2009, Chest.

[7]  S. Laporte,et al.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism in orthopedic surgery with vitamin K antagonists: a meta‐analysis , 2004, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[8]  J. Sch.  GRADE: grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  Sarah Lord,et al.  When Is Measuring Sensitivity and Specificity Sufficient To Evaluate a Diagnostic Test, and When Do We Need Randomized Trials? , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  J. Parvizi,et al.  American academy of orthopaedic surgeons clinical practice guideline on. Prevention of symptomatic pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  Old versus new anticoagulants: focus on pharmacology. , 2010, Recent patents on cardiovascular drug discovery.

[12]  Hui Shen,et al.  Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials , 2010, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[13]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Randomised comparisons of medical tests: sometimes invalid, not always efficient , 2000, The Lancet.