Reply to: comparative effectiveness medicines research cannot assess efficacy

We appreciate the insightful comments from Drs. Dal-Ré and Carcas in their letter to the editor regarding our paper “Publication of comparative effectiveness research (CER) has not increased in high-impact medical journals, 2004–2013

Publication of comparative effectiveness research has not increased in high-impact medical journals, 2004-2013

Objective To explore the impact of increasing interest and investment in patient-centered research, this study sought to describe patterns of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pharmacologic intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013. Design and Setting We identified 2335 articles published in five widely read medical journals from 2004-2013 with ≥1 intervention meeting the US Food and Drug Administration's definitions for a drug, biologic, or vaccine. Six trained reviewers extracted characteristics from a 20% random sample of articles (468 studies). We calculated the proportion of studies with CER and PROs. Trends were summarized using locally-weighted means and 95% confidence intervals. Results Of the 468 sampled studies, 30% used CER designs and 33% assessed PROs. The proportion of studies using CER designs did not meaningfully increase over the study period. However, we observed an increase in the use of PROs. Conclusions Among pharmacological intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013, we identified no increase in CER. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials continue to be the dominant study design for assessing pharmacologic interventions. Increasing trends in PRO use may indicate greater acceptance of these outcomes as evidence for clinical benefit