ArticleThe patient2019
Patient-Community Perspectives on Real-World Evidence: Enhancing Engagement, Understanding, and Trust.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cardiovascular mortality and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association with antidepressant treatment and co-morbidity.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Capturing Real-World Rare Disease Patient Journeys: Are Current Methodologies Sufficient for Informed Healthcare Decisions?Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Pooled it
- Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Patient Experience with 10 mg Intranasally Administered Zavegepant as an Acute Treatment of Migraine Attacks: Qualitative Research Findings.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Chain mediating effects of self-efficacy and social support on the relationship between engagement in an internet-based traditional Chinese medicine nursing program and quality of life among lung cancer patients: a cross-sectional questionnaire study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Assessing the Value of Integrated Evidence Approaches in Drug Development.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Patient-Focused Drug Development and Real World Study.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
- 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 · 2025Review
- Article
- A rare partnership: patient community and industry collaboration to shape the impact of real-world evidence on the rare disease ecosystem.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Review
- A global neuronopathic gaucher disease registry (GARDIAN): a patient-led initiative.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Promote Community Engagement in Participatory Research for Improving Breast Cancer Prevention: The P.I.N.K. Study Framework.Cancers · 2022Article
- Engaging Patients in Real-World Evidence: An Atrial Fibrillation Patient Advisory Board Case Example.The patient · 2021Article
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
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
Identifiers
What 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.