Early adopters of new technologies are often critical of hospital administrators and payers who scrutinize use of such technologies because of a lack of clinical evidence to justify the incremental cost associated with their use. These early adopters often cite the difficulties of demonstrating a new technology's comparative clinical effectiveness that are due to the time lag required for clinical follow-up. However, as Alan Garber, former health economist at Stanford University and the current Provost of Harvard University, has aptly noted, “Since no intervention is assumed to be effective until it has been proved effective, the burden of proof for a new medical intervention is placed on its advocates. Examining the evidence requirement from their point of view is an important step toward understanding its consequences” (8). Furthermore, as Emanuel and colleagues have pointed out, “Novelty cannot be equated with benefit. An intervention's value resides in its ability to reduce mortality, morbidity, or save money, not in its unique mechanism of action” (9). Therefore, clinicians should embrace patient registries; randomized, controlled trials; observational cohort studies; and other forms of evidence development as they seek to understand the comparative effectiveness of new technologies and provide the highest-value care for their patients.