Introducing Volume 6 of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Author: Laura Dormer [email protected]Author Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 6, Number 1

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0074

PDF

**Figure 1.** Author demographics for the *Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research* in 2016.

Welcome to Volume 6 of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research (JCER). I am pleased to introduce this first issue of 2017, which as usual contains a broad spread of content representing the diverse field of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-centered outcomes research.

As our readers know, CER is a field that continues to evolve. To reflect this, we updated our Aims & Scope information in mid 2016 – this now includes more specific wording regarding patient-centered outcomes research, real-word evidence, precision medicine and big data, and the importance of the methodology applied to CER. While the journal has always embraced these topics, we felt it was appropriate to more fully reflect this in our Aims & Scope. To read this in full, please visit the website [1].

To further emphasize the importance of real-world data to CER, this issue includes an editorial article by Dr Richard White (Oxford PharmaGenesis, UK), discussing how to build trust in real-word evidence for use in CER and healthcare decision-making [2].

Also in this issue is a ‘From Methods to Policy’ article written by one of our senior editors, Dr Eugene Rich (Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC, USA), which takes a look back at the key events and progress in the field of CER over the past 10 years, from November 2006 when Dr Gail Wilensky first proposed a ‘Center For Comparative Effectiveness Information’ [3], through to the founding of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the current CER environment in the USA. As discussed by Dr Rich, CER publications have exploded over that period, with >4200 publications featuring the phrase ‘comparative effectiveness’ since November 2006.

Content highlights of 2016

Looking back over the past year, JCER has continued to see this trend reflected in the number of submissions we have received, with an approximately 30% increase in the number of submissions compared with 2015. Some of the most read articles in 2016 serve to reflect the areas of particular interest to the field, with the top ten 2016 articles by readership shown in Table 1. These include both disease-specific research (such as asthma, diabetes, and skin and soft tissue infections) and discussions of overarching CER issues – including stakeholder engagement, appropriate study design and the overall impact of CER on healthcare decision-making.

Journal frequency increase

Based on the continuing growth in high-quality submissions, I am pleased to announce that from 2017 the journal will be increasing in frequency to eight issues per year. This will allow us to ensure continued fast publication times for our authors, and a broad range of high-quality content for our readers.

Demographics of contributors

It is always interesting to consider the sources of our content, and looking back at the Foreword to our 2016 volume, a high proportion of our content was originating from the USA. While we still receive a high number of our submissions from North America, this year we have seen a move in demographics to a higher proportion of submissions from Europe, in particular the UK (Figure 1). JCER continues to welcome content from across the globe, and we encourage unsolicited article proposals.

Spread the word

The past year has seen our social media presence continues to grow, including our Twitter [14] and LinkedIn groups [15]. As always, we welcome any contributions via these platforms, and appreciate any comments and feedback we receive there.

In 2017 JCER (and all the Future Science Group journals) is continuing its partnership with Kudos [16]. This is a great way for authors to spread the word themselves about their publications, and also monitor the impact of their efforts – authors are encouraged to add additional information (such as a short title, lay abstract, and so on), to share via various social media platforms, web pages or email contacts, and then track the impact of their actions via their own dashboard on the site.

JCER also offers various services to our authors to increase the speed and reach of their articles – including our accelerated publication and open access options. Interested readers can find out more on our website [17].

Conclusion

As always, we welcome feedback from the community on where you feel the field is going and topics you would like to see us cover in the journal. As mentioned, we welcome unsolicited article proposals, and would be delighted to hear from you. Later in 2017 we will be including a special themed issue on decision analytics in CER, and would particularly welcome article proposals in this area.

Many thanks for your continuing interest and support for JCER, I look forward to working with many of you over the coming year.

Table 1. Top ten Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 2016 articles by readership^†.

Rank	Title	Authors	Volume(issue)	Ref.
1	Engaging stakeholders to design a comparative effectiveness trial in children with uncontrolled asthma	Erwin K, Martin MA, Flippin T et al.	5(1)	[4]
2	Comparative effectiveness research in the USA: when will there be an impact on healthcare decision-making?	Westrich KD, Wilhelm JA, Schur CL	5(2)	[5]
3	Ceftaroline fosamil treatment outcomes compared with standard of care among hospitalized patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections	Karve S, Hackett J, Levinson J, Gibson E, Battersby A	5(4)	[6]
4	Comparing high-dimensional confounder control methods for rapid cohort studies from electronic health records	Low YS, Gallego B, Shah NH	5(2)	[7]
5	Incidence and cost of hypoglycemic events requiring medical assistance in a hospital setting in Denmark	Lyngsie PJ, Lopes S, Olsen J	5(3)	[8]
6	Using design methods to provide the care that people want and need	Erwin K, Krishnan JA	5(1)	[9]
7	An overview and discussion of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s decision aid portfolio	Gayer CC, Crowley MJ, Lawrence MF et al.	5(4)	[10]
8	The never-ending struggle with laboratory testing for Clostridium difficile infection	Polage CR, Turkiewicz JV, Cohen SH	5(2)	[11]
9	Cost–effectiveness thresholds in the USA: are they coming? Are they already here?	Dubois RW	5(1)	[12]
10	The impact of comparative effectiveness research: stakeholders’ views on what will improve healthcare decision-making	Westrich KD	5(4)	[13]

^†As at 13 October 2016.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

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.

References

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Aims & Scope. www.futuremedicine.com/loi/cer