We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Viewpoint |

Ethics, Regulation, and Comparative Effectiveness Research Time for a Change

Richard Platt, MD, MS1; Nancy E. Kass, ScD2; Deven McGraw, JD, LLM, MPH3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
2Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
3Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington, DC
JAMA. 2014;311(15):1497-1498. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2144.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


The US health care system is poised to learn more about preventing, diagnosing, and treating illness than has ever been possible. This change is powered by the increasing commitment to comparative effectiveness research, increases in practice-based research, and the increasing availability of data arising from electronic health information systems to help patients, clinicians, and others understand who benefits from which treatments. Much can be learned by observing the outcomes of the varied decisions that clinicians and hospitals make. However, for many health care questions, it is important to intervene by systematically varying care, for instance by randomly selecting the order in which a new practice is introduced into different parts of a system or by randomly assigning different commonly used treatments to patients who are good candidates for all of the approaches. Indeed, random assignment would be important to ascribe causality to the change.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

9 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Care at the Close of Life: Evidence and Experience
Moral and Legal Framework

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Ethical Considerations