Article preview reprinted from "The Gray Sheet" - January 11, 2010
The National Institutes of Health committed about $40 million to medical-device-focused comparative effectiveness research efforts in 2009. Here is a selection of the funded studies. Read more...
Article preview reprinted from "The Gray Sheet" - January 11, 2010
|
Selected NIH Comparative Effectiveness Research Projects |
The National Institutes of Health committed about $40 million to medical-device-focused comparative effectiveness research efforts in 2009. Here is a selection of the funded studies. |
|
Study Topic |
Organization |
Funding |
Cost-effectiveness comparisons included? |
|
Comparison of noninvasive cardiac imaging techniques |
Brigham and Women's Hospital |
$499,077 |
Yes |
|
PROMISE trial: comparing coronary CT angiography to standard diagnostic tools for heart disease |
Duke University |
$5.6 million |
Yes |
|
Massachusetts General Hospital |
$1.7 million |
Yes |
|
Duke |
$1.2 million |
Yes |
|
Duke |
$234,000 |
Yes |
|
CT colonography vs. standard colon cancer screening |
Massachusetts General |
$394,651 |
No |
|
Advanced screening technologies for breast cancer |
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute |
$432,434 |
No |
|
Establishing a cancer diagnostics comparative effectiveness research center |
University of Washington |
$2 million |
No |
|
Establishing a genomic testing comparative effectiveness center |
University of Pennsylvania |
$2 million |
Yes |
|
Cancer pharmacogenomic marker studies |
Duke |
$2 million |
No |
|
Comparing gene tests for colon cancer |
Kaiser Foundation |
$2 million |
Yes |
|
10-year follow-up on SCD-HeFT ICD outcomes |
Seattle Institute For Cardiac Research |
$496,015 |
No |
|
Minimally invasive surgical ablation vs. medical therapy for atrial fibrillation |
University of Florida |
$397,631 |
No |
|
CABG vs. stenting: linking three national patient databases |
American College of Cardiology |
$2.7 million |
Yes |
|
Hybrid revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary intervention |
Emory University |
$500,000 |
Yes |
|
Robotic vs. open sacrocolpopexy vaginal prolapse surgery |
UCLA |
$500,000 |
Yes |
|
Robotic vs. open prostatectomy |
Beth Israel Deaconess |
$500,000 |
Yes |
|
Uterine artery embolization vs. magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound for uterine fibroids |
Mayo Clinic |
$500,110 |
No |
|
Surgical vs. medical treatments for type-2 diabetes |
University of Pittsburgh |
$500,000 |
No |
|
Medical therapy vs. bariatric surgery for type-2 diabetes |
Brigham and Women's |
$500,000 |
No |
|
Partial meniscectomy vs. nonoperative care |
Brigham and Women's |
$1.4 million |
No |
|
Comparative studies of device migration data of the five FDA-approved endograft devices for abdominal aortic aneurysm |
Stanford University |
$499,991 |
No |
|
Source: NIH RePORTER database, http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm, accessed Jan. 7, 2010 | |
- The Gray Sheet
Elsevier Business Intelligence announces the publication of a new Special Report: Oncology Outlook: How Cutting-Edge Medical Technology Is Improving the Odds for Cancer Patients. Find out more
FREE i-Phone Device Report*
FREE 30-Day Trial of "The Gray Sheet"
No obligation. No credit card needed. Click here to sign up
(*SPECIAL REPORT: When is an iPhone a Medical Device? - $129 Value - FREE)
To find out about more about more about Elsevier Business Intelligence's medical device publications and databases, multi-user access and/or advertising with Medical Devices Today, please contact Sean Smith at 240-221-4535 or se.smith@elsevier.com.
Comments