This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jonathan C. Javitt, MD, MPH

Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(8):1079-1080.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Clinical research in ophthalmology has increasingly shifted from isolated case reports and retrospective analyses of case series to randomized prospective trials and cross-sectional population-based studies of eye disease, enabling investigators to draw broadly applicable inferences about treatment, disease prevalence, and risk factors. Because clinical trials and population-based studies consume considerable scarce research resources in terms of research funds, personnel, and space, they are appropriately employed only to answer questions of major interest that cannot be answered through other means. In proper circumstances, the implementation of recommendations resulting from multicenter trials can generate positive economic and clinical outcomes.^1,2

See also p 1085.

Study of the outcomes and effectiveness of medical care (so-called outcomes research) based on insurance databases and similar secondary sources shows promise for studying issues not practically addressed by clinical trials and population-based studies. At comparatively lower cost and research resource consumption, outcomes research can provide an overview . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Washington, DC

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?