Introducing Volume 7 of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

In this issue, we start the year with an interesting spread of commentary, original research and review content. Real-world evidence has become an important discussion point, and source of data, in recent times (as shown by some of our most read articles in 2017, see more below). This issue includes an interview from Dr Marc Berger, discussing the reports published by the joint ISPOR–ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in healthcare decision making, with the goal of establishing good procedural practices for real-world data studies and ultimately increase trust in this type of research [1].

In his Editorial, Skip Olson discusses the development of an integrated strategy for evidence generation, bringing together both randomized clinical trial and real-world evidence-based approaches [2].

In a new White Paper, Hampson et al. discuss the outcomes of an Institute for Clinical and Economic Review policy forum, exploring the challenges presented by gene therapies, discussing potential solutions and presenting policy recommendations [3].

Also in this issue is a range of research and review content, including a Methodology paper discussing the Platform for Haematology in EMEA: Data for Real World Analysis (PHEDRA) [4]; and research on hemophilia B [5] and hemorrhage following cesarean delivery [6].

This issue is completed with a protocol paper describing the dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, warfarin comparative effectiveness research study [7] and a Systematic Review article examining treatments, quality of life and costs in metastatic breast cancer [8].

In 2017, we saw a wide range of content proving most popular with readers, as we have come to expect (Table 1)! Real-world evidence proved to be a popular topic, with two editorials addressing this subject appearing in the top 10. In a piece that featured in the first issue of the year, Richard White discussed the issues regarding trust in real-world evidence and the need for transparency in order to achieve this [9]. Later in the year, Bill Byrom and Bill Row discuss the use of digital technologies to collect patient data for outcomes research, particularly for observational research and real-world evidence studies [10]. In particular, this focused on the use of apps on patients’ own devices (so-called ‘bring your own device’ studies), and the challenges and opportunities this presents.

Also popular this year were two From Methods to Policy articles, looking more broadly at the field of comparative effectiveness research (CER). Eugene Rich, senior editor for the journal took a look back at the progress that has been made in CER, since the call in the USA for a ‘center for comparative effectiveness information’ in 2006 [12]. Kalipso Chalkidou, associate editor, went on to provide a round-up in the next issue of CER and health technology assessment around the globe [17].

Issue 3 of 2017 saw a series of three related papers, all of which have made it into the top ten of the year [14,16,18]. Researchers from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute examined the views of various stakeholders on CER and research engagement. Based on a large, cross-sectional survey involving patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers, these papers provide information regarding their attitudes, experiences and needs related to health information, CER specifically and research engagement.

In issue 5, an interesting White Paper was published, exploring the potential of indication-specific pricing of pharmaceuticals and discussing prospects for implementation in the US healthcare system [15]. The paper was the result of a policy forum convened by Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, and involved 44 healthcare leaders from 22 payer and life sciences companies. Throughout the forum, a number of challenges of integrating ISP into the US healthcare system were identified, and potential solutions proposed. In addition, the group discussed potential legal and regulatory challenges.

The final papers rounding out the top ten articles of the year were two pieces of original research. The first, conducted by Andrew Chan et al. (Bern University Hospital, Switzerland), compared two multiple sclerosis drugs in a matching-adjusted indirect comparison [11]. The second paper, from Juliana Meyers et al. (RTI Health Solutions, NC, USA), was a retrospective study examining the use of adjunctive guanfacine extended release on stimulant adherence in children/adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [13].

As always, a wide array of content was published in volume 6, addressing the broad range of interests of those working in the field.

It is interesting to review the source of our content each year, and see how this evolves over time. In 2017, it is interesting to note that content has been published from authors from a higher number of countries than ever before (Figure 1). The UK and the USA, as expected, still make up a large proportion of author affiliations; however, 2017 also saw content from around the world, including Europe, South America and Asia.

We were pleased to see the journal's impact factor rise again this year, to 1.204 (2016). Citations to the journal have risen every year since launch, and we are proud to have been able to provide high-quality content that is garnering citations in a wide array of publications.

Our editorial board is a constant support to the journal, and provides invaluable input to drive the direction we take. In 2017, we were pleased to welcome two new members to the board: Alexander Bastian, Head, Global Value, Access & Pricing, at Incyte Corporation (DE, USA) and Nanxin (Nick) Li, HEOR Lead, Value and Access, at Bioverativ, Inc (MA, USA). I look forward to working with both further in 2018.

Providing additional added-value services for our authors has always been a priority for us. However, at the end of 2016 we were pleased to be able to form a partnership with Publons (winners of the 2017 Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers [ALPSP] Award for Innovation in Publishing) [19], to more fully recognize and give credit to our peer reviewers, who play such a vital role in underpinning the quality of our journal. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research reviewers benefit from a seamless integration within the ScholarOne manuscripts system used to complete their review, allowing them to simply opt in during the review process. Their reviews are then assigned to their verified profile on Publons, in a format they can include in promotion and funding applications, thereby allowing formal recognition for the work they have completed.

In July 2017, we were pleased to unveil our newly designed website. The methods our readers use to access the journal have moved on a great deal in recent years, and the new website has been designed with this in mind; new features help readers to quickly and easily navigate the site, provide new social and sharing capabilities and provide well-structured pages regardless of the device being used to access the articles [20].

Following the successful increase to eight issues in 2017, I am pleased to announce that the journal will increase to monthly publication in 2018. This is a reflection of the increased number of high-quality submissions we have been receiving, and will allow us to further improve the author experience by speeding up the submission to publication time frame.

In conclusion, 2017 was another exciting year for the journal, and I am looking forward to seeing how the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research continues to develop in 2018. As always, feedback from our readers is welcome and we are happy to receive any presubmission enquiries if you are interested in submitting your work to us.

L Dormer is an employee of Future Medicine Ltd. The author has no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.