Comments on: Why we need CER – the short story

By: Why we need CER - the short story < It’s all about the trends

Why we need CER - the short story < It’s all about the trends — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:08:08 +0000

[...] perform as well? We need more head to head trials of ACE-I vs. ARB’s for delaying progression click for more var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : [...]

By: Why we need CER - the short story < It’s all about the trends

Why we need CER - the short story < It’s all about the trends — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:08:08 +0000

By: James Gaulte

James Gaulte — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:00:47 +0000

I was preparing a reply but I find that Dr. Robert Donnell’s recent blog entry ( http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2009/04/db-on-comparative-effectiveness.html) said everything I wanted to say. ( OK I did one anyway).My blogs on the subject have not been “against CER” but have expressed serious concern about a government funded and managed CER agency.

By: Bigislandmike

Bigislandmike — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:55:05 +0000

What if you used fewer acronyms (UFA), or explained them the first time you use them (EFT)? I love reading your blog, and I often don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. I’m an anesthesiologist with many years in academic medicine and private practice, but I’m often unable to think of words that fit a particular set of letters. I’ll bet others, particularly nonmedical readers, miss the benefit of your thinking and find themselves out of the loop as well. Please, in support of being more widely understood, consider limiting or explaining acronyms.
Thanks.

By: #1 Dinosaur

#1 Dinosaur — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:56:47 +0000

What I don’t understand is how CER is qualitatively different from just regular old clinical research? What’s to stop you — or anyone else, for that matter — from studying chlorthalidone and HCTZ? I realize that it’s all tied to funding, but wouldn’t it be easier, quicker and cheaper just to direct NIH to adjust their focus and increase funding for such “basic” studies, instead of creating an entirely new “CER” bureaucracy?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:12:06 +0000

Maybe your faith in statins is overplaced. A new scientific review of 900 studies shows statins have too many harmful side-effects:

http://www.wellnessresources.com/freedom/articles/researchers_document_the_dangers_of_statins/

Maybe the correct question should be: Are there any proven, safe alternatives to statins:

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/mar2007_atd_01.htm

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:17:21 +0000

I think that CER is a great goal. However, I think it will ultimately be very different than we’re all envisioning. The key reason is (from the linked Keynote Address): “…the agencies that make grants for CER must care deeply about these key attributes and the mission of CER”.

Government agencies tend to get filled with career appointees whose main goals in life become: 1) sustaining their own employment and 2) expanding the number of people who report to themselves. I just don’t the confidence in government agencies that so many others seem to display.

By: Robert W. Donnell

Robert W. Donnell — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:12:34 +0000

DB,
I am not opposed to CER per se but I may be one of the bloggers you reference in your post. At any rate, in light of your post, I think it may be a good time to clarify some of the skepticism on the part of myself and others towards the current agenda of CER. I have a post in preparation which will probably go up Monday morning. I hope you will read it and share your thoughts.