Among other flaws, hypothetical migraine study lacks independent evaluation and patient engagement

Abstract

The hypothetical comparative effectiveness research case study on migraine treatments raises questions about how to disseminate the research findings. However, at least two important elements would be necessary to maximize the value and credibility of the findings. The study would need an independent evaluation to help decision makers understand the strength of the research, its place in the context of other existing evidence, and how the research could inform real-world decisions. Also, the patient community would have to be engaged throughout the research continuum to provide patients' perspective on living with chronic conditions and how various treatments affect them.