Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-k8xkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T07:04:33.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - “Can It Work? Does It Work? Is It Worth It?”

from Part I - Fundamentals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

Karen B. Schmaling
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Robert M. Kaplan
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access

Summary

In the middle of the last century, Archie Cochrane, one of the founding fathers of evidence-based medicine, argued that understanding healthcare treatments required the consideration of three questions: “Can it work?”, “Does it work?” and “Is it worth it?” Each of these questions addresses a different aspect of the problem and requires different assumptions and different research methodologies. Understanding if a treatment can work establishes proof of principle derived from efficacy studies that control who takes the treatment, how it is administered, and how outcomes are measured. The question “Does it work?” is about effectiveness that is evaluated under conditions of the usual care. Randomized controlled trials, which form the core of efficacy research, are difficult to employ in the evaluation of effectiveness. Even if interventions are shown to be efficacious and effective, people need to decide if accepting the treatment is worth it. Healthcare can be expensive, inconvenient, painful, and sometimes of little value. This introductory chapter reviews the three questions and prepares the reader for the in-depth discussion of these issues in the following 16 chapters.

Type
Chapter
Information
Rethinking Clinical Research
Methodology and Ethics
, pp. 17 - 34
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cochrane, AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. The Rock Carling Fellowship, Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972:xi, p. 92.Google Scholar
Haynes, B. Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. BMJ. 1999; 319(7211):652653. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7211.652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porzsolt, F. Comparative effectiveness is the common denominator in health services research: Experimental effects are promising, real-world effects are compelling. J Complement Integr Med. 2023; 21(1):1925. doi:10.1515/jcim-2023-0179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mentz, RJ, Kaski, JC, Dan, GA, et al. Implications of geographical variation on clinical outcomes of cardiovascular trials. Am Heart J. 2012; 164(3):303312. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2012.06.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/.Google Scholar
Manabe, N, Haruma, K, Ito, M, et al. Efficacy of adding sodium alginate to omeprazole in patients with nonerosive reflux disease: A randomized clinical trial. Dis Esophagus. 2012; 25(5):373380. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2050.2011.01276.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bate, CM, Green, JR, Axon, AT, et al. Omeprazole is more effective than cimetidine for the relief of all grades of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-associated heartburn, irrespective of the presence or absence of endoscopic oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1997; 11(4):755763. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.1997.00198.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richter, JE, Peura, D, Benjamin, SB, Joelsson, B, Whipple, J. Efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of symptomatic acid reflux disease without esophagitis. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160(12):18101816. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.12.1810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosseini, M, Salari, R, Akbari Rad, M, Salehi, M, Birjandi, B, Salari, M. Comparing the effect of psyllium seed on gastroesophageal reflux disease with oral omeprazole in patients with functional constipation. J Evid Based Integr Med. 2018; 23:2515690X18763294. doi:10.1177/2515690X18763294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bate, CM, Griffin, SM, Keeling, PW, et al. Reflux symptom relief with omeprazole in patients without unequivocal oesophagitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1996; 10(4):547555. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.1996.44186000.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckxstaens, G, El-Serag, HB, Smout, AJ, Kahrilas, PJ. Symptomatic reflux disease: The present, the past and the future. Gut. 2014; 63(7):11851193. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines., Graham R. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. National Academies Press; 2011:xxxiv, p. 266.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2030. February 4, 2024, https://health.gov/healthypeople/.Google Scholar
Kaplan, RM, Milstein, A. Contributions of health care to longevity: A review of 4 estimation methods. Ann Fam Med. 2019; 17(3):267272. doi:10.1370/afm.2362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cockerham, WC. Theoretical approaches to research on the social determinants of obesity. Am J Prev Med. 2022; 63(1 Suppl 1):S8–S17. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2022.01.030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakerveld, J, Mackenbach, J. The upstream determinants of adult obesity. Obes Facts. 2017; 10(3):216222. doi:10.1159/000471489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Agborsangaya, CB, Majumdar, SR, Sharma, AM, Gregg, EW, Padwal, RS. Multimorbidity in a prospective cohort: Prevalence and associations with weight loss and health status in severely obese patients. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015; 23(3):707712. doi:10.1002/oby.21008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, BC, Somers, SC, Fuchs, CS, Kelly, CP, Camargo, CA. Body-mass index and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux in women. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(22):23402348. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa054391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Bortoli, N, Guidi, G, Martinucci, I, et al. Voluntary and controlled weight loss can reduce symptoms and proton pump inhibitor use and dosage in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A comparative study. Dis Esophagus. 2016; 29(2):197204. doi:10.1111/dote.12319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yadlapati, R, Pandolfino, JE, Alexeeva, O, et al. The Reflux Improvement and Monitoring (TRIM) program is associated with symptom improvement and weight reduction for patients with obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018; 113(1):2330. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loudon, K, Treweek, S, Sullivan, F, Donnan, P, Thorpe, KE, Zwarenstein, M. The PRECIS-2 tool: Designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015; 350:h2147. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janiaud, P, Dal-Ré, R, Ioannidis, JPA. Assessment of pragmatism in recently published randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178(9):12781280. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dal-Ré, R, Janiaud, P, Ioannidis, JPA. Real-world evidence: How pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? BMC Med. 2018; 16(1):49. doi:10.1186/s12916-018-1038-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, B, Zhang, L, Wang, J, et al. Empirical treatment of outpatients with gastroesophageal reflux disease with proton pump inhibitors: A survey of Chinese patients (the ENLIGHT Study). J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; 33(10):17221727. doi:10.1111/jgh.14143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, S, Shamrao Kulkarni, S, Mahapatra, JR, et al. Effectiveness of omeprazole in acid peptic disease: A real-world, patient-reported outcome measures study. Cureus. 2023; 15(7):e41994. doi:10.7759/cureus.41994.Google ScholarPubMed
Lanas, A, Rodrigo, L, Márquez, JL, et al. Low frequency of upper gastrointestinal complications in a cohort of high-risk patients taking low-dose aspirin or NSAIDS and omeprazole. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2003; 38(7):693700. doi:10.1080/00365520310003967.Google ScholarPubMed
Sox, HC, Greenfield, S. Comparative effectiveness research: A report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(3):203205. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elliott, N, Steel, A, Leech, B, Peng, W. Design characteristics of comparative effectiveness trials for the relief of symptomatic dyspepsia: A systematic review. Integr Med Res. 2021; 10(2):100663. doi:10.1016/j.imr.2020.100663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, JE, Snow, KK, Kosinski, M, Gandek, B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.Google Scholar
Wiklund, IK, Junghard, O, Grace, E, et al. Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia patients: Psychometric documentation of a new disease-specific questionnaire (QOLRAD). Eur J Surg Suppl. 1998; (583):4149.Google ScholarPubMed
Furlong, WJ, Feeny, DH, Torrance, GW, Barr, RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001; 33(5):375384. doi:10.3109/07853890109002092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Dika, S, Guyatt, GH, Armstrong, D, et al. The impact of illness in patients with moderate to severe gastro-esophageal reflux disease. BMC Gastroenterol. 2005; 5:23. doi:10.1186/1471-230X-5-23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fallone, CA, Guyatt, GH, Armstrong, D, et al. Do physicians correctly assess patient symptom severity in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004; 20(10):11611169. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.02257.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schünemann, HJ, Armstrong, D, Degl’innocenti, A, et al. A randomized multicenter trial to evaluate simple utility elicitation techniques in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Care. 2004; 42(11):11321142. doi:10.1097/00005650-200411000-00013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Cost utility analysis: Health economic studies. Accessed June 3, 2023, www.gov.uk/guidance/cost-utility-analysis-health-economic-studies.Google Scholar
Mafi, JN, May, FP, Kahn, KL, et al. Low-value proton pump inhibitor prescriptions among older adults at a large academic health system. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019; 67(12):26002604. doi:10.1111/jgs.16117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, SM, Rjater, RG, Kale-Pradhan, PB. Perils and pitfalls of long-term effects of proton pump inhibitors. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2013; 6(4):443451. doi:10.1586/17512433.2013.811206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bavishi, C, Dupont, HL. Systematic review: The use of proton pump inhibitors and increased susceptibility to enteric infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 34(11–12):12691281. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04874.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngamruengphong, S, Leontiadis, GI, Radhi, S, Dentino, A, Nugent, K. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106(7):12091218; quiz 1219. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huber, MA, Nadella, S, Cao, H, et al. Does chronic use of high dose proton pump inhibitors increase risk for pancreatic cancer? Pancreas. 2022; 51(9):11181127. doi:10.1097/MPA.0000000000002145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, H, Zhang, R, Zhang, P, et al. Association of proton pump inhibitors with gastric and colorectal cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2023; 14:1129948. doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1129948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onwuzo, S, Boustany, A, Khaled Abou Zeid, H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors associated with inflammatory bowel disease in patients using proton-pump inhibitors: A population-based study. Cureus. 2023; 15(1):e34088. doi:10.7759/cureus.34088.Google ScholarPubMed
Mc Cord, KA, Ewald, H, Agarwal, A, et al. Treatment effects in randomised trials using routinely collected data for outcome assessment versus traditional trials: Meta-research study. BMJ. 2021; 372:n450. doi:10.1136/bmj.n450.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×