Abstract
When planning a comparative effectiveness study comparing disease-modifying treatments, competing demands influence choice of outcomes. Current practice emphasizes parsimony, although understanding multidimensional treatment impact can help to personalize medical decision-making. We discuss both sides of this 'tug of war'. We discuss the assumptions, advantages and drawbacks of composite scores and multidimensional outcomes. We describe possible solutions to the multiple comparison problem, including conceptual hierarchy distinctions, statistical approaches, 'real-world' benchmarks of effectiveness and subgroup analysis. We conclude that comparative effectiveness research should consider multiple outcome dimensions and compare different approaches that fit the individual context of study objectives.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
