@article{13efaab3300b4ffbaed8ee1855b4d007,
title = "Panel discussion 1",
author = "Kay Dickersin and George Williams and Stephen George",
note = "Funding Information: We have had a good mix of topics in this session and I will focus on putting these issues into a larger context. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is today{\textquoteright}s new buzz word, and in this regard, I was especially interested in a recent commentary by Drs. DeMets and Califf [], where they asked, {\textquoteleft}Where have all the academic clinical trialists gone?{\textquoteright} They make a comparison between industry-funded trials and academic trials, the latter presumably funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and nonprofit organizations. Before the recent discussions about what CER really means, I hadn{\textquoteright}t really thought about whether these two funding streams are related to differences in whether a trial addresses doctors{\textquoteright} questions. In these discussions, people have been saying that commercial trials don{\textquoteright}t answer the questions doctors really have. For one thing, they compare active treatment to placebo, because of the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), when doctors{\textquoteright} questions are really about head-to-head comparisons of interventions. Furthermore, these days, we are interested in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and neither commercial, NIH, nor not-for-profit trials have been addressing PCOR adequately. ",
year = "2012",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1177/1740774512463179",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "696--704",
journal = "Clinical Trials",
issn = "1740-7745",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "6",
}