Welcome to the eighth volume of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research (JCER). Every year it is interesting to look back over the previous year's content, as this provides us with a glimpse of the various interesting directions the field is moving in. Below I will discuss some of 2018's most popular articles, and also look forward to what 2019 has to bring, in this issue and beyond.
In this issuePersonalized 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 importan...