Comparative Effectiveness

Comparative Effectiveness Research

Clinicians, consumers, health-care systems, health-care purchasers and policy makers increasingly want to know “what works” and if there is research to support this. They need to know if a treatment or test works better compared with other options and what harms there may be. For over a decade, Spectrum Research has been involved in comparative-effectiveness research to help answer these questions.

Comparative effectiveness research compares interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat or monitor health conditions. This includes evidence generation and evidence synthesis. Spectrum research has expert experience in both.

Spectrum Research’s comparative effectiveness research provide a concise, balanced and independent synthesis of relevant clinical research. Groups who benefit from these include:

  • Professional organizations, clinician groups and foundations for development of clinical recommendations and guideline formulation
  • Clinicians for evidence-based decision making and patient discussions
  • Clinicians who are asked by payers to provide evidence for policy formulation or treatment exceptions
  • Health-care systems and administrations for developing evidence-based protocols
  • Payers for coverage decisions and exceptions
  • Policy makers for health-care policy discussions and determinations
  • Researchers to identify gaps in knowledge and evidence and consider how to best address those gaps
  • Educators of health-care professionals and their students

Our reports facilitate sound evidence-based decision making as they use accepted methods for rigorous development, a standard critical appraisal system for evaluating study bias and quality, and a concise description of the overall strength of evidence.

Systematic Reviews

Spectrum Research’s systematic reviews and focused evidence briefs reflect a planned, orderly, methodical approach to searching for pertinent literature and synthesizing the highest quality information from clinical studies to answer specific, focused key questions. Methodologically rigorous systematic reviews form the basis for:

  • Understanding risk factors and harms
  • Clinical practice guideline (CPG) and clinical recommendation development
  • Comparative effectiveness research (CER)
  • Health technology assessment (HTA)
  • Identification of research gaps and needs