ArticleClinical and translational allergy2019
The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies.
Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- How well can we assess the validity of non-randomised studies of medications? A systematic review of assessment tools.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Do systemic steroids impact survival free of cerebral palsy in preterm infants at risk for bronchopulmonary dysplasia?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Biomarker profile and disease burden associated with intermittent and long-term oral corticosteroid use in patients with severe asthma prior to biologic initiation in real-life (STAR).The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Expert Perspectives on Next Generation Health Guidelines: How to Integrate RWE in EBM.Pragmatic and observational research · 2025Article
- RIAIT (Italian Registry of Allergen Immunotherapy): Protocol for a New Tool in a New Vision of Disease-Modifying Therapy for Allergists.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol for the Management of COPD in a UK Primary Care Population: Real-World Use and Early Medication Success.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Observational
- Recommendations for Designing, Conducting and Reporting Clinical Observational Studies in Homeopathic Veterinary Medicine.Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy · 2023Review
- The Size of a Thyroid Nodule with ACR TI-RADS Does Not Provide a Better Prediction of the Nature of the Nodule: A Single-Center Retrospective Real-Life Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Roles of real-world evidence in severe asthma treatment: challenges and opportunities.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Real-Life Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Immune Therapy with Carbamylated Monomeric Allergoids on Mite, Grass, and Pellitory Respiratory Allergy: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Review
- Biologics in severe asthma: the role of real-world evidence from registries.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022Review
- Article
- Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: Quality appraisal of observational comparative effectiveness studies using the REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool. An EAACI methodology committee analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2021Article
- Highlights and recent developments in allergic diseases in EAACI journals (2019).Clinical and translational allergy · 2020Review
- Observational studies assessing the pharmacological treatment of obstructive lung disease: strengths, challenges and considerations for study design.ERJ open research · 2020Review
- Quality standards in respiratory real-life effectiveness research: the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): report from the Respiratory Effectiveness Group-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force.Clinical and translational allergy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development.
methodsThe REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted-the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named "primary sub-items".
resultsFollowing the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties.
conclusionsRELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER.
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.