title: Consensus of recommendations guiding comparative effectiveness research methods.
abstract: Because of an increasing demand for quality comparative effectiveness research (CER), methods guidance documents have been published, such as those from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Our objective was to identify CER methods guidance documents and compare them to produce a summary of important recommendations which could serve as a consensus of CER method recommendations.
  
  
  
  We conducted a systematic literature review to identify CER methods guidance documents published through 2014. Identified documents were analyzed for methods guidance recommendations. Individual recommendations were categorized to determine the degree of overlap.
  
  
  
  We identified nine methods guidance documents, which contained a total of 312 recommendations, 97% of which were present in two or more documents. All nine documents recommended transparency and adaptation for relevant stakeholders in the interpretation and dissemination of results. Other frequently shared CER methods recommendations included: study design and operational definitions should be developed a priori and allow for replication (n = 8 documents); focus on areas with gaps in current clinical knowledge that are relevant to decision-makers (n = 7); validity of measures, instruments, and data should be assessed and discussed (n = 7); outcomes, including benefits and harms, should be clinically meaningful, and objectively measured (n = 7). Assessment for and strategies to minimize bias (n = 6 documents), confounding (n = 6), and heterogeneity (n = 4) were also commonly shared recommendations between documents.
  
  
  
  We offer a field-consensus guide based on nine CER methods guidance documents that will aid researchers in designing CER studies and applying CER methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
authors.affiliation: University of Rhode Island, Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Kingston, RI, USA.|Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Infectious Diseases Research Program and Center of Innovation in Long Term Services and Supports, Providence, RI, USA.
authors.forename: Jacob B
authors.initials: JB
authors.lastname: Morton
authors.affiliation: University of Rhode Island, Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Kingston, RI, USA.
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: McConeghy
authors.affiliation: Pfizer Inc., Collegeville, PA, USA.
authors.forename: Kirstin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Heinrich
authors.affiliation: Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA.|Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA.
authors.forename: Nicolle M
authors.initials: NM
authors.lastname: Gatto
authors.affiliation: University of Rhode Island, Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Kingston, RI, USA.|Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Infectious Diseases Research Program and Center of Innovation in Long Term Services and Supports, Providence, RI, USA.|Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA.
authors.forename: Aisling R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Caffrey
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D057186:Comparative Effectiveness Research / Q000379:methods*; D015986:Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D012107:Research Design
keywords: comparative effectiveness research; consensus document; methods guides; pharmacoepidemiology