ReviewDer Nervenarzt2017
[Real-world evidence : Benefits and limitations in multiple sclerosis research].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in administrative health databases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Alemtuzumab in a Large Real-Life Cohort: Interim Baseline Data of the TREAT-MS Study.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Daily Practice Managing Resistant Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity With Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol: Cannabidiol Oromucosal Spray: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReal-world evidence (RWE) expands the data obtained in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which are based on both homogeneous selected patient groups and limited study durations, to long-term experiences in clinical routine. In particular, chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS) with both heterogeneous pathologies and a growing number of therapeutic options require a careful RWE-based assessment of long-term efficacy and safety parameters.
objectiveThis review presents RWE data sources applied in MS research and discusses potential quality standards. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis article is based on the results of an expert meeting of the authors held in October 2015 and a selective literature search.
resultsThe RWE data sources include the reporting system of drug safety monitoring, non-interventional studies, MS-specific registries, administrative health databases, and electronic medical records. These data sources have different objectives and are subject to specific limitations with respect to the disease and therapy-relevant analytical options. The combination of different sources into an integrative approach might improve the validity of RWE in MS research; however, this objective requires the standardization of data collection and processing as well as the definition of uniform and transnational quality standards.
conclusionThere is still a need for high-quality, comprehensive, and valid RWE data as these data cover additional aspects of patient care and expand the data available by complementary information. Further development of an integrative RWE approach requires cooperation at various levels with the aim of the best possible standardization and harmonization of clinical MS data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28776214What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.