Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30666526›Full record

ArticleThe patient2019

Patient-Community Perspectives on Real-World Evidence: Enhancing Engagement, Understanding, and Trust.

Elisabeth M Oehrlein, Jennifer S Graff, Jason Harris, Eleanor M Perfetto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Assessing the Value of Integrated Evidence Approaches in Drug Development.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025
    Article
  7. Patient-Focused Drug Development and Real World Study.Integrative medicine research · 2025
    Review
  8. Ethical considerations on the use of big data and artificial intelligence in kidney research from the ERA ethics committee.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Elisabeth M OehrleinNational Health Council, 1730 M Street #500, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. eoehrlein@nhcouncil.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6892-3958
Jennifer S GraffNational Pharmaceutical Council, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave NW #800, Washington, DC, 20006, USA.
Jason HarrisNational Health Council, 1730 M Street #500, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
Eleanor M PerfettoNational Health Council, 1730 M Street #500, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare stakeholders have pronounced both enthusiasm and apprehension over the expanding use of real-world evidence (RWE). The patient community-those who benefit from new treatments but are vulnerable to potential safety risks and whose routine medical encounters are used to generate RWE-has been less vocal. Understanding patient perspectives on the use of RWE to guide clinical decision making and inform regulatory decisions and value assessments is imperative.

methodsWe convened a day-long, multi-stakeholder roundtable in Washington D.C., USA, on 31 July 2017 to gather patient-community views on RWE and related concerns and the communications, information and tools needed by patients to understand, trust, and use RWE. Participants included a convenience sample of National Health Council (NHC) members primarily representing patient groups as well as non-patient members with an interest in RWE. Participants were organized into small, pre-assigned groups, ensuring representativeness across stakeholders and patient leadership. Discussions, including storyboards, notes, and illustrative examples were captured and later analyzed thematically by NHC staff.

resultsTen RWE themes emerged: (1) most patients were unaware of RWE and its actual or potential uses, (2) common definitions for real-world data and RWE are needed, (3) patient organizations need RWE skills and tools, (4) patient-scientist partnerships can help differentiate high-quality RWE, (5) RWE should inform decision making, (6) clinician support is needed for RWE uptake in patient decision making, (7) communications to patients should be balanced and empowering, (8) context of use impacts RWE acceptability/trust, (9) privacy/data ownership require clarity, and (10) patient-generated data are also real-world data (RWD).

conclusionPatients see great possibility in using RWE to understand how a treatment works-to find someone that "looks like me" as assurance of how a treatment might benefit them personally. Patient groups will play a critical role in helping to educate constituents on understanding, contributing to, and using RWE. To maximize patient uptake and the co-development and application of RWE, patient groups require education and tools.

Indexed as

Decision MakingResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationAwarenessCommunicationEmpowermentHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient ParticipationTrust

Identifiers

PMID30666526
PMCPMC6598955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.