Introducing Volume 8 of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Personalized and precision medicine continues to be a hot topic across many disciplines; however, many diagnostic tests and biomarkers are prevented from being adopted for use in healthcare systems due to a lack of evidence regarding their cost–effectiveness. This issue of JCER starts with a methodology article by Ling et al. that describes a stepwise approach to conducting cost–effectiveness analyses, performed early in the development of a technology to help reduce the potential risks of investment [1].

The remainder of the issue includes a range of interesting original research. Hsu et al. look at quality improvement and patient safety programs, which can often be suboptimal due to resource constraints [2]. The authors used an external, secondary database – the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database – to evaluate the Cardiovascular Surgical Translational Study (CSTS). This was a quality improvement and patient safety program aimed at reducing hospital-acquired infections and improving patient safety within hospitals’ various cardiac surgery units. The authors compared CSTS hospitals with matched comparison hospitals to assess the impact of the CSTS.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is a very common neurodevelopmental disorder, with onset most commonly occurring in childhood. In their study, Du et al. assess the validity and reliability of the Dundee Difficult Times of the Day Scale, a ten-question rating scale used by parents to assess their child's functional impairment throughout the day [3]. The authors compare the Dundee Difficult Times of the Day Scale with two general rating scales for the general assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Real-world evidence continues to be an important source of information in outcomes research, and in the next research article, Feldman and colleagues examine real-world adherence and costs of apremilast compared with biologic agents in US psoriasis patients [4].

Next, Priyadarshini et al. examine the comparative outcomes of methods to induce labor – an intervention that has been reported by the WHO to be used in 25% of all deliveries in developed countries [5]. In this study, the authors compare the outcomes of a combination of the Foley bulb and misoprostol, with misoprostol alone, for induction of labor.

In the final article of this issue, Murray and colleagues assess the cost–effectiveness of a range of treatments for overactive bladder, compared with best supportive care [6]. Overactive bladder has been reported to occur in 16.9% of women and 16.0% of men in the USA, with prevalence increasing with age. The condition has important implications for both health-related quality of life and healthcare expenditure; therefore, understanding the cost–effectiveness of the available treatment options is critical for informing treatment decisions.

As in previous years, we have taken a look back over the content published in 2018 to see what topics have proved most popular with our readers (Table 1). This year once again highlighted a broad range of content types (systematic reviews, original research and opinion pieces) and topics as being important to our community.

The most read article of 2018 (at the time of writing) has been a white paper discussing 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 [7]. Interest in this topic is unsurprising, given the approval by the US FDA of the first gene therapy at the end of 2017, and the huge amount of interest and optimism the field of cell and gene therapies attracts.

Systematic reviews provide valuable synthesis of published research so it is unsurprising that three of the top ten most-read articles from 2018 were of this article type. The first, by Caroff et al., compares treatments for tardive dyskinesia; a movement disorder sometimes caused by treatment with antipsychotics and antiemetics [8]. A second systematic review by Parisi and colleagues examines treatments, quality of life and costs in metastatic breast cancer [9]. The third, by Malla et al., describes how missing data are addressed with propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness studies [10].

Real-world evidence is also a feature of the 2018 top ten; in a methodology paper published in the January 2018 issue, Garside and colleagues describes the Platform for Hematology in EMEA: Data for Real World Analysis (PHEDRA) – describing the main steps taken to validate and analyze independent, existing real-world data and providing background on the methodology of how the comparative evidence is generated and how the PHEDRA results can be interpreted [11].

Original research is of course some of the most important content JCER publishes, and the first example of this in our top ten provides a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining therapies for lumbar degenerative disc disease, conducted by Zigler and colleagues [12]. This paper is of particular note as it highlights a new feature introduced to JCER this year – the video abstract. For an increasingly time-constrained audience, it is vital to JCER that we are doing all we can to increase the reach of the papers we publish, and a video abstract provides authors with an opportunity to describe their work in an accessible and easily digestible format. Videos are also, of course, ideally suited to sharing via our various social media platforms (such as the journal's Twitter account [13] and LinkedIn group [14]), and it is interesting to note the very high Altmetric score this article has received (an indication of the online attention it has received) [15]. Of course, many things can lead to increased online attention, but it certainly seems in this case that the video abstract has been a positive addition. Video abstracts feature alongside an article online, and also on the Future Science Group YouTube channel [16]. I am keen to encourage more such content in 2019 following Dr Zigler's example, so watch this space!

Rheumatology once again proved a popular topic in 2018, and the next article is an original research paper examining treatment patterns among patients with active ankylosing spondylitis treated with a TNF inhibitor [17].

While original research results and methods form the core of our content, it is also important to put information in context, and hear the opinions of experts in the field. In his January 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 [18]; a perspective article in issue 6 discusses learning healthcare systems, and their transition to learning healthcare communities [19]; and finally, a narrative review article from Waycaster and colleagues discusses recent clinical effectiveness, cost–effectiveness and safety research for the treatment of chronic dermal ulcers with clostridial collagenase ointment [20].

As well as looking back over the topics and types of article published in the journal, it is also interesting to consider the source of the content (Figure 1). As usual, the UK and USA make up the greater proportion of our authorship; however, it is interesting to see contributors from some new countries this year, including Cyprus, Brazil and Peru.

The journal's impact factor again rose this year to 1.906 (2017). Our priority remains the timely publication of high-quality research, and it is good to see that this is also being reflected in broader recognition and citation of JCER content in other scholarly works.

Sadly 2018 saw JCER's founding co-Senior Editors, Sheldon Greenfield and Eugene Rich, stepping down from their roles. Dr Greenfield and Dr Rich have been hugely supportive during the journal's founding years, and I look forward to continuing to work with them as members of our Editorial Board. However, I was delighted in September to welcome our new Senior Editor, Dr David Hickam of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute [21], and look forward to working with him in 2019 and beyond.

In 2018, we were also pleased to welcome two new members to the Editorial Board: Professor Ivo Abraham, Professor of Pharmacy and Medicine at the University of Arizona (AZ, USA), and Dr Vishvas Garg, Global Rheumatology Lead, Health Economics & Outcomes Research at Abbvie (IL, USA).

As you may remember, 2018 saw the journal increase in frequency to become a monthly publication. Following the success of this move, and the continued increase in interesting, high-quality submissions we are receiving, I am pleased to announce that the journal's frequency will increase to 16 issues per year from 2019.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all our readers, authors and Editorial Board members, who contributed to the journal in 2018. I look forward to working with you all again in the coming year, and of course would welcome any feedback or article proposals you might have.

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.