Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCipriani, Andrea
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-12T11:09:57Z
dc.date.available2020-05-12T11:09:57Z
dc.date.issued2020-03
dc.identifier.citationIlina Singh, Huseyin Naci, Jennifer Miller, Arthur Caplan, Andrea Cipriani. 2020. Ethical implications of poor comparative effectiveness evidence: obligations in industry-research partnerships. The Lancet, Volume 395, Issue 10228, Pages 926-928en
dc.identifier.issn0140-6736
dc.identifier.urihttps://oxfordhealth-nhs.archive.knowledgearc.net/handle/123456789/461
dc.description.abstractWhich treatment is best for me? This question is at the centre of the clinical consultation. And yet, too often, the question is not answerable with available evidence on drugs and devices. The two Lancet Series papers on comparative effectiveness 1 , 2 document the shortcomings of the process for regulatory approval in incentivising the generation of comparative effectiveness evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and the health-care system. The paucity of meaningful comparative data on drugs and devices before and after market entry compromises clinical decision making. We argue that measurable ethical obligations to patients should form the core of future comparative effectiveness research in an era of personalised medicine.
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30413-Xen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectResearch Ethicsen
dc.titleEthical implications of poor comparative effectiveness evidence: obligations in industry-research partnershipsen
dc.typeArticleen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record