Systematic Literature Review of the Methods Used to Compare Newer Second-Generation Agents for the Management of Schizophrenia: A focus on Health Technology Assessment.

Background: The challenges of comparative effectiveness to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are important considerations in the choices of antipsychotic medications for the treatment of schizophrenia.

Objectives: Our aim was to assess the study methods used and outcomes reported in the published literature to address the question of comparative effectiveness of newer antipsychotic agents and the adequacy and availability of evidence to support HTA agencies.

Data Source: A systematic search of the PubMed database from 1 January 2009 to 30 September 2013 was conducted to identify studies evaluating new atypical antipsychotics reporting on comparative effectiveness.

Health-related quality of life in advanced prostate cancer and its treatments: biochemical failure and metastatic disease populations.

Introduction: This study aimed to examine the impact of advanced prostate cancer and its treatments on patients' perceptions of their health and to better understand concerns not captured by currently available health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments.

Patients And Methods: Open ended one-on-one interviews were conducted with patients with prostate cancer who had biochemical failure or metastatic cancer to understand the impacts of disease and treatments on patients' perceptions of their lives. Interviews with 25 patients (7 biochemical failure and 18 metastatic) and 6 clinicians were conducted.

Efficacy and effectiveness of depot versus oral antipsychotics in schizophrenia: synthesizing results across different research designs.

Objective: Nonadherence is a major challenge in schizophrenia treatment. While long-acting (depot) antipsychotic medications are often recommended to address adherence problems, evidence on the comparative effectiveness of depot versus oral antipsychotics is inconsistent. We hypothesize that this inconsistency could be due to systematic differences in study design.