0
Research and Reporting Methods |

Prioritization of Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research for OsteoarthritisResearch for Osteoarthritis FREE

Jennifer M. Gierisch, PhD, MPH; Evan R. Myers, MD, MPH; Kristine M. Schmit, MD, MPH; Douglas C. McCrory, MD, MHS; Remy R. Coeytaux, MD, PhD; Matthew J. Crowley, MD; Ranee Chatterjee, MD, MPH; Amy S. Kendrick, RN, MSN; and Gillian D. Sanders, PhD
[+] Article and Author Information

This article was published online first at www.annals.org on 13 May 2014.


From the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Duke Evidence Synthesis Group, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.

Acknowledgment: The authors thank Megan M. Chobot, MSLS, for project coordination, and Liz Wing, MA, for editorial assistance. They also thank the members of the stakeholder panel: Kelli Allen, PhD; Teresa Brady, PhD; G. Kelley Fitzgerald, PhD; Yvonne M. Golightly, PhD; Lyndon Joseph, PhD; Jeffrey Katz, MD; Gayle Lester, PhD; Dave Mekemson; Paul Rockar, DPT; Jyme Schafer, MD; Nancy Simington; Kim Templeton, MD; and Patience White, MD.

Financial Support: By PCORI.

Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M14-0318.

Requests for Single Reprints: Jennifer M. Gierisch, PhD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Campus Box 104427 DUMC, Durham, NC 27701; e-mail, j.gierisch@dm.duke.edu.

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Gierisch: Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Campus Box 104427 DUMC, Durham, NC 27701.

Dr. Myers: Duke University Medical Center, Box 3279, 244 Baker House, Durham, NC 27710.

Drs. Schmit, McCrory, Coeytaux, and Sanders and Ms. Kendrick: Duke Clinical Research Institute, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715.

Dr. Crowley: Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Health Services Research and Development (152), 508 Fulton Street, Durham, NC 27705.

Dr. Chatterjee: Sutton Station Internal Medicine, 5832 Fayetteville Road, Suite 113, Durham, NC 27713.

Author Contributions: Conception and design: J.M. Gierisch, R.R. Coeytaux, M.J. Crowley, G.D. Sanders.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: J.M. Gierisch, E.R. Myers, D.C. McCrory, M.J. Crowley, R. Chatterjee, G.D. Sanders.

Drafting of the article: J.M. Gierisch, R.R. Coeytaux, G.D. Sanders.

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: J.M. Gierisch, E.R. Myers, M.J. Crowley, G.D. Sanders.

Final approval of the article: J.M. Gierisch, E.R. Myers, D.C. McCrory, R.R. Coeytaux, M.J. Crowley, R. Chatterjee, A.S. Kendrick, G.D. Sanders.

Provision of study materials or patients: A.S. Kendrick, G.D. Sanders.

Statistical expertise: G.D. Sanders.

Obtaining of funding: G.D. Sanders.

Administrative, technical, or logistic support: J.M. Gierisch, A.S. Kendrick, G.D. Sanders.

Collection and assembly of data: J.M. Gierisch, E.R. Myers, K.M. Schmit, D.C. McCrory, R.R. Coeytaux, M.J. Crowley, R. Chatterjee, A.S. Kendrick, G.D. Sanders.


Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(12):836-841. doi:10.7326/M14-0318
Text Size: A A A

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability in the United States. This article describes a prioritized research agenda about osteoarthritis management developed for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Evidence gaps were identified by reviewing existing literature and engaging diverse stakeholders to expand and refine gaps. Stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance from their perspectives.Prioritized evidence gaps included the need to determine or evaluate key patient-centered outcomes; optimal duration, intensity, and frequency of nonsurgical interventions; whether the comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions varies by socioeconomic factors; when and how to transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions; effective ways to engage patients in self-management and promote long-term behavior change; standardized screening tools that improve early diagnosis; biomechanical strategies that improve symptoms; mechanisms for promoting and delivering coordinated, longitudinal care; and comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical therapies. Searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov showed many recent and ongoing studies addressing comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions; relatively few of these evaluated treatments across categories (for example, drug therapy vs. weight management) or combined categories of treatment. Few studies addressed other high-priority evidence gaps.


Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading form of disability in the United States and can affect weight-bearing and non–weight-bearing joints (12). It can manifest as a generalized condition affecting multiple joint groups or a localized condition affecting only 1 joint. In OA, structural and then symptomatic failure of 1 or more synovial joints occurs with loss and erosion of articular cartilage, subchondral bone alterations, meniscal degeneration, limited synovial inflammatory response, and bone and cartilage overgrowth (3).

Physical and psychological factors influence the symptoms of pain and stiffness in the joints affected by OA (4). Diagnosing OA can be complex, usually requiring a complete clinical history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and radiographic studies to help confirm the suspected diagnosis.

Approximately 27 million adults in the United States are living with OA of 1 or more joints (5), and this number is projected to increase steadily over the coming decades because of an aging population and an increasing prevalence of obesity (6). In the Framingham Heart Study cohort, the prevalence of symptomatic knee OA has increased by 4.1% among women and 6.0% among men over 20 years (7).

Osteoarthritis exacts a tremendous toll on patients and society; it ranks third (behind depression and alcohol misuse) in years lost to disability in the United States (8). Health care costs of OA are high—and are increasing. Between 1997 and 2009, the number of hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of OA more than doubled to an estimated 921 000 (5). Moreover, the health care costs of inpatient, outpatient, and pharmaceutical treatment have been estimated to be 50% greater than those for persons without the condition (9).

Nonsurgical management options for OA include analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs, weight management, exercise, and physical therapy or a combination of these strategies (such as medication plus exercise). When medication and exercise or physical therapy are not enough to decrease pain and improve quality of life, joint surgery is another option. Each management strategy has tradeoffs. For example, persons with OA are twice as likely as those without to develop peptic ulcers (relative risk, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.37 to 4.51]) and renal disease (relative risk, 2.10 [CI, 1.10 to 4.01]), which are probably associated with high use of anti-inflammatory medications (10). However, evidence is limited on the relative benefits and harms of therapies within each category (medication, physical therapy and exercise, weight loss, or surgery) and there are few direct comparisons of effectiveness, in terms of patient-centered outcomes, among categories or combinations of categories.

Given the high prevalence of OA and the effect on functional status, productivity, and quality of life, optimizing treatments to stabilize symptoms, reduce pain, and maintain functional status should be a high priority. The aim of this project was to develop, in collaboration with diverse stakeholders, a prioritized research agenda about OA management that would reduce uncertainty about nonsurgical management options and optimize patient-centered outcomes.

The Appendix Figure shows our methods, which were previously detailed (11). We identified and appraised recently published systematic reviews; clinical practice guidelines; and documents on future research needs, including an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report identifying future research needs for physical therapy for knee OA (12). On the basis of recommended areas for future research from these sources, we developed a draft list of 31 possible evidence gaps.

Grahic Jump Location
Appendix Figure.

Overview of prioritization process.

Adapted from reference 19. ESG = Evidence Synthesis Group; PCORI = Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Grahic Jump Location

We then engaged a group of 13 stakeholders that included clinical experts and researchers in OA treatment strategies; representatives from federal and nongovernmental funding agencies, relevant professional societies, and related consumer and patient advocacy groups; and health care decision makers and policymakers. The stakeholders provided input on the draft list of evidence gaps. We modified certain gaps and added others on the basis of their feedback and then constructed a relevant analytic framework (Figure). Using a forced-ranking prioritization method (13), stakeholders prioritized the list of possible evidence gaps via Web-based surveys.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure.

Analytic framework.

Italicized text indicates top-tier gaps. ADLs = activities of daily living; FRN = future research need; OA = osteoarthritis.

Grahic Jump Location

We then performed 2 database searches to identify recently published and ongoing studies relevant to the future research questions that stakeholders ranked in the top tier. Database queries included a search of PubMed between 16 December 2008 and 16 December 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 December 2013. We categorized topic areas and key characteristics of the identified studies. Finally, senior Evidence Synthesis Group investigators proposed appropriate study designs to address the stakeholders’ highest-ranked priority research areas. (Tables 1 and 2 of the Supplement] show the stakeholder panel and search strategies.)

Role of the Funding Source

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) provided funding for this work. The funding source stipulated the topic for prioritization but did not participate in the literature search, determination of study eligibility criteria, data analysis or interpretation, or preparation or approval of the manuscript for publication. Staff from PCORI did review a draft version of the manuscript and provided suggestions to clarify language describing the process in selecting this topic for prioritization.

Expansion of Evidence Gaps Through Stakeholder Engagement

The stakeholder panel expanded the initial list of 31 evidence gaps to 48. The final list illustrated several common themes: Stakeholders stressed that future research should focus on engaging patients early in the disease process, helping patients navigate treatment options that optimize patient-centered outcomes (for example, negative affect, sleep, pain, and employment), and developing strategies that promote successful long-term engagement in nonsurgical treatment options. New questions suggested by the stakeholders addressed a wide range of evidence gaps related to the unique needs of subpopulations and the comparative effectiveness of diverse interventions.

Stakeholders acknowledged that several patient groups received less attention than others and that it would be important to assess the comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical management strategies by sex, socioeconomic status, and prevalence and severity of comorbid conditions among adults and patients who had previously had surgical treatment of OA. Stakeholders stressed the progressive and chronic nature of OA and the importance of early detection and patient engagement. They also emphasized the importance of setting up patients for success—that is, that treatments should be tailored to patients’ abilities, insurance coverage, culture, and preferences.

Stakeholders acknowledged that many current and ongoing studies focus on short-term outcomes and do not necessarily provide the needed information about long-term outcomes reflecting the chronic nature of the disease. They highlighted the importance of shared decision-making tools for not only exploring nonsurgical options but also discussing the optimal timing for transition to surgical interventions. They also stressed the incorporation of patient preferences for specific outcomes and their personal characteristics (and the effect of those characteristics on potential efficacy of treatment options) in such shared decision-making tools.

Stakeholder Ranking of Future Research Needs

The Appendix Table shows the 48 final potential research topics, the number of points each received, and the number of stakeholders who allotted points to each topic. The final ranking divides the possible evidence gaps into a top, middle, and lower tier on the basis of overall score. The top 12 future research needs (Table) prioritized by stakeholders were related to identifying key patient-centered outcomes; determining optimal duration, intensity, and frequency of interventions; examining the effect of socioeconomic differences on management strategies; determining the need for transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions; promoting long-term behavior change; standardizing screening tools; evaluating biomechanical strategies; developing strategies to help patients engage in key self-management behaviors; promoting coordinated care in today's new health care delivery system; comparing methods for identifying and engaging patients early in the disease process; comparing safety and effectiveness of usual-care nonsurgical therapies; and identifying ways for setting patients up to succeed with nonsurgical management.

Table Jump PlaceholderAppendix Table. Final Ranking of Future Research Needs for Alternative Strategies for OA* 
Table Jump PlaceholderTable. Top-Ranked Research Priorities and Recommended Study Designs or Suggested Analyses to Address Them 

Although the stakeholder group expanded the initial list to 48 potential future research needs, 18 of the final questions received no votes (5 questions) or 1 to 2 votes by at most 2 stakeholders (13 questions). Of the 12 questions ranked as highest priority, 2 were new questions that stakeholders suggested (questions focusing on the transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions and on methods for setting patients up to succeed with nonsurgical management). The other 10 high-priority ranked questions were part of the original list of suggested future research needs. Of the 18 questions ranked low priority, 9 were from our original list and 9 were suggested by stakeholders.

Horizon Scan of Studies Potentially Relevant to Top-Tier Research Questions

The PubMed search identified 4692 articles. Of these, 427 met inclusion criteria, including 92 systematic reviews; 254 randomized, controlled trials; 41 cohort studies; 3 case–control studies; and 37 studies of other design types. Most studies (n = 339) pertained to the comparative effectiveness of available nonsurgical therapies (228 randomized, controlled trials and 79 systematic reviews). Within this set of 339 studies, 119 explored the safety and effectiveness of oral medications (29 systematic reviews; 84 randomized, controlled trials; 3 cohort studies; and 3 other studies). All but 20 of these evaluated oral medications compared with another oral medication or placebo.

Relatively few studies evaluated treatments across categories (for example, drug therapy compared with weight management) or combined categories of treatment (for example, drug therapy plus exercise compared with drug therapy only). There were few studies for most of the other high-priority evidence gaps, with only 3 studies targeting ways of determining the need to transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions and only 7 studies investigating strategies for identifying and engaging patients early in the disease process.

The ClinicalTrials.gov search yielded 153 open, potentially relevant protocols. Of these, 55 were categorized as potentially relevant to the top-tier research questions. Sample sizes of these studies ranged from 8 to 20 000 patients, and estimated completion dates of the studies ranged from currently overdue to June 2017. (Tables 3 to 14 of the Supplement show key characteristics of the recent and ongoing studies relevant to the 12 top-tier future research needs.)

Suggested Research Design Considerations

The Table summarizes the Evidence Synthesis Group's suggestions for appropriate study designs or suggested analyses to address the 12 top-tier research priorities. Proposed designs and analyses to address specific gaps included meta-analysis of individual-patient data, randomized trials, and observational studies requiring collection of new data. Pragmatic clinical trials (1415) may be particularly useful for several of these research priorities, as PCORI's recent funding announcement emphasized (16). (Table 15 of the Supplement provides additional details about possible advantages and disadvantages of multiple study designs for each gap.)

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic condition that leads to functional limitations, pain, disability, and lost earnings and is associated with high utilization of health care (1718). A key theme that emerged from our research prioritization process is that future research priorities should focus on attending to patients’ needs across the spectrum of the disease, from identification through treatment decisions on the transition from nonsurgical to surgical OA interventions.

The most highly ranked research needs focused on identifying the most important patient-centered outcomes and optimizing attributes of nonsurgical intervention (that is, duration, intensity, and frequency) that create sustained changes in patient-centered outcomes. Each nonsurgical treatment method may present tradeoffs between effectiveness in terms of optimizing patient-centered outcomes and other important attributes of treatments (for example, time required for frequent clinician visits and sacrifices involved in dietary modification) that may affect patients’ willingness to adopt and maintain treatment options. Thus, direct measurement of patient preferences for different attributes of interventions (including effectiveness and duration, intensity, and frequency) would be highly useful in designing comparative effectiveness studies. The literature search and the review of ongoing research in ClinicalTrials.gov revealed that, although a substantial amount of ongoing research is focused on the comparative safety and effectiveness of usual-care nonsurgical therapies (with most focusing on pharmacotherapies), relatively little work is focused on identifying the most important patient-centered outcomes and how these may map to attributes of nonsurgical treatment strategies.

Many of the other high-priority research needs focused on developing better approaches to help enhance long-term patient engagement in strategies that may prevent the progression of and disability from OA. This factor is reflected in the high ranking of future research needs that focus on promoting long-term behavior change, developing strategies to help patients engage in key self-management behaviors for OA, promoting coordinated OA care in today's new health care delivery system, comparing methods for identifying and engaging patients early in the disease process, and identifying methods for setting patients up to succeed with nonsurgical management.

Osteoarthritis is a chronic illness, so focusing on strategies that promote continuing engagement is a practical approach to optimizing outcomes. Our search of the literature and ongoing studies identified few studies evaluating early engagement of patients, methods for setting patients up for success, and coordinating OA care in today's new health care delivery system. Stakeholders stress that strategies tailored to patients’ abilities, insurance, culture, and preferences may enhance the success of OA interventions in the long term.

The list of future research needs that we generated and expanded with stakeholder feedback may not reflect the total range of possible future research. Although we included a diverse group of stakeholders with particular interest in patient-centered research, the panel involved relatively few stakeholders. Another group of stakeholders might add other future research needs or rank the identified future research needs differently. We did not conduct comprehensive systematic reviews pertinent to the identified evidence gaps; therefore, we could not determine with certainty the degree to which prioritized future research needs have already been addressed.

To advance a patient-centered research agenda, future research should focus on addressing patients’ needs across the disease spectrum and enhancing long-term engagement in strategies that stabilize the symptoms of OA. A panel of stakeholders representing diverse perspectives identified 12 research areas as the highest priorities for future research of patient-centered management strategies for persons with OA. If studied, these 12 research areas may enhance the patient experience of managing OA symptoms and enable patients to optimize their most valued health outcomes.

Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, Hirsch R, Helmick CG, Jordan JM, et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 133:635-46.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, Hirsch R. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991-94. J Rheumatol. 2006; 33:2271-9.
PubMed
 
Nuki G. Osteoarthritis: a problem of joint failure. Z Rheumatol. 1999; 58:142-7.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Rosemann T, Laux G, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M, Grol R. Pain and osteoarthritis in primary care: factors associated with pain perception in a sample of 1,021 patients. Pain Med. 2008; 9:903-10.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Murphy L, Helmick CG. The impact of osteoarthritis in the United States: a population-health perspective. Am J Nurs. 2012; 112:S13-9.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, et al, National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 58:26-35.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Nguyen US, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, Niu J, Zhang B, Felson DT. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155:725-32.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Michaud CM, McKenna MT, Begg S, Tomijima N, Majmudar M, Bulzacchelli MT, et al. The burden of disease and injury in the United States 1996. Popul Health Metr. 2006; 4:11.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Lee DW, Meyer JW, Clouse J. Implications of controlling for comorbid conditions in cost-of-illness estimates: a case study of osteoarthritis from a managed care system perspective. Value Health. 2001; 4:329-34.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, O'Fallon WM. Comorbidity in arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1999; 26:2475-9.
PubMed
 
Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM, Crowley MJ, McCrory DC, Chatterjee R, et al. Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160:484-91.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Brasure M, Shamliyan TA, Olson-Kellogg B, Butler ME, Kane RL. AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. Physical therapy for knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: future research needs: identification of future research needs from comparative effectiveness review no. 77. Report no. 13-EHC048-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
PubMed
 
Chang SM, Carey TS, Kato EU, Guise JM, Sanders GD. Identifying research needs for improving health care. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157:439-45.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ. 2009; 180:E47-57.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011; 13:217-24.
PubMed
 
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.  Pragmatic clinical studies and large simple trials to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. 2014. Accessed at www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/funding-announcements/pragmatic-clinical-studies-and-large-simple-trials-to-evaluate-patient-centered-outcomes on 17 April 2014.
 
Yelin E, Murphy L, Cisternas MG, Foreman AJ, Pasta DJ, Helmick CG. Medical care expenditures and earnings losses among persons with arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in 2003, and comparisons with 1997. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 56:1397-407.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  NHIS arthritis surveillance: specific functional limitations among people with arthritis. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/national_nhis.htm#functional on 5 February 2014.
 
Ip S, Raman G, Concannon TW, Ratichek SJ, Yu W, Chang LKW, et al.  Intravascular Diagnostic Procedures and Imaging Techniques Versus Angiography Alone in Coronary Artery Stenting: Future Research Needs. Future Research Needs Paper no. 25. (Prepared by Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2007-10055-I.) AHRQ publication no. 13-EHC016-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Accessed at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/512/1413/coronary-artery-stenting-future-130604.pdf on 23 January 2014.
 

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Appendix Figure.

Overview of prioritization process.

Adapted from reference 19. ESG = Evidence Synthesis Group; PCORI = Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Grahic Jump Location
Grahic Jump Location
Figure.

Analytic framework.

Italicized text indicates top-tier gaps. ADLs = activities of daily living; FRN = future research need; OA = osteoarthritis.

Grahic Jump Location

Tables

Table Jump PlaceholderAppendix Table. Final Ranking of Future Research Needs for Alternative Strategies for OA* 
Table Jump PlaceholderTable. Top-Ranked Research Priorities and Recommended Study Designs or Suggested Analyses to Address Them 

References

Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, Hirsch R, Helmick CG, Jordan JM, et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 133:635-46.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, Hirsch R. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991-94. J Rheumatol. 2006; 33:2271-9.
PubMed
 
Nuki G. Osteoarthritis: a problem of joint failure. Z Rheumatol. 1999; 58:142-7.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Rosemann T, Laux G, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M, Grol R. Pain and osteoarthritis in primary care: factors associated with pain perception in a sample of 1,021 patients. Pain Med. 2008; 9:903-10.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Murphy L, Helmick CG. The impact of osteoarthritis in the United States: a population-health perspective. Am J Nurs. 2012; 112:S13-9.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, et al, National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 58:26-35.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Nguyen US, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, Niu J, Zhang B, Felson DT. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155:725-32.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Michaud CM, McKenna MT, Begg S, Tomijima N, Majmudar M, Bulzacchelli MT, et al. The burden of disease and injury in the United States 1996. Popul Health Metr. 2006; 4:11.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Lee DW, Meyer JW, Clouse J. Implications of controlling for comorbid conditions in cost-of-illness estimates: a case study of osteoarthritis from a managed care system perspective. Value Health. 2001; 4:329-34.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Gabriel SE, Crowson CS, O'Fallon WM. Comorbidity in arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1999; 26:2475-9.
PubMed
 
Gierisch JM, Myers ER, Schmit KM, Crowley MJ, McCrory DC, Chatterjee R, et al. Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160:484-91.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Brasure M, Shamliyan TA, Olson-Kellogg B, Butler ME, Kane RL. AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. Physical therapy for knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: future research needs: identification of future research needs from comparative effectiveness review no. 77. Report no. 13-EHC048-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
PubMed
 
Chang SM, Carey TS, Kato EU, Guise JM, Sanders GD. Identifying research needs for improving health care. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157:439-45.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ. 2009; 180:E47-57.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011; 13:217-24.
PubMed
 
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.  Pragmatic clinical studies and large simple trials to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. 2014. Accessed at www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/funding-announcements/pragmatic-clinical-studies-and-large-simple-trials-to-evaluate-patient-centered-outcomes on 17 April 2014.
 
Yelin E, Murphy L, Cisternas MG, Foreman AJ, Pasta DJ, Helmick CG. Medical care expenditures and earnings losses among persons with arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in 2003, and comparisons with 1997. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 56:1397-407.
PubMed
CrossRef
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  NHIS arthritis surveillance: specific functional limitations among people with arthritis. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/arthritis/data_statistics/national_nhis.htm#functional on 5 February 2014.
 
Ip S, Raman G, Concannon TW, Ratichek SJ, Yu W, Chang LKW, et al.  Intravascular Diagnostic Procedures and Imaging Techniques Versus Angiography Alone in Coronary Artery Stenting: Future Research Needs. Future Research Needs Paper no. 25. (Prepared by Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-2007-10055-I.) AHRQ publication no. 13-EHC016-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Accessed at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/512/1413/coronary-artery-stenting-future-130604.pdf on 23 January 2014.
 

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Supplements

Supplemental Content
Supplement. Supplementary Data for Prioritization of Research Addressing Osteoarthritis

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)