Publication of comparative effectiveness research has not increased in high-impact medical journals, 2004-2013.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of increasing interest and investment in patient-centered research, this study sought to describe patterns of comparative effectiveness research (CER) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pharmacologic intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013.

DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified 2335 articles published in five widely read medical journals from 2004-2013 with ≥1 intervention meeting the US Food and Drug Administration's definitions for a drug, biologic, or vaccine. Six trained reviewers extracted characteristics from a 20% random sample of articles (468 studies). We calculated the proportion of studies with CER and PROs. Trends were summarized using locally-weighted means and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS: Of the 468 sampled studies, 30% used CER designs and 33% assessed PROs. The proportion of studies using CER designs did not meaningfully increase over the study period. However, we observed an increase in the use of PROs.

CONCLUSIONS: Among pharmacological intervention studies published in widely read medical journals from 2004-2013, we identified no increase in CER. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials continue to be the dominant study design for assessing pharmacologic interventions. Increasing trends in PRO use may indicate greater acceptance of these outcomes as evidence for clinical benefit.