ArticleBMJ open2019
Use of real-world evidence in postmarketing medicines regulation in the European Union: a systematic assessment of European Medicines Agency referrals 2013-2017.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparability of external and internal control patients for the prospective randomized HOVON-103 trial in older AML patients.British journal of haematology · 2026Trial
- Feasibility of a prospective real-time monitoring system capturing real-world data from elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- The Role of Adverse Event Follow-Up in Advancing the Knowledge of Medicines and Vaccines Safety: A Scoping Review.Drug safety · 2025Article
- Establishing a cardiology registry: navigating quality and regulatory challenges with a focus on congenital heart disease.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- The EU project Real4Reg: unlocking real-world data with AI.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Navigating Recent Changes in Dosing Information: Dynamics of FDA-Approved Monoclonal Antibodies in Post-Marketing Realities.Clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Postmarketing Follow-Up of a Digital Home Exercise Program for Back, Hip, and Knee Pain: Retrospective Observational Study With a Time-Series and Matched-Pair Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Observational
- Methods for the Inclusion of Real-World Evidence in a Rare Events Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Fast Methods for Drug Approval: Research Perspectives for Pandemic Preparedness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Marketing Authorization Applications Made to the European Medicines Agency in 2018-2019: What was the Contribution of Real-World Evidence?Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the use, and evaluate the usefulness, of non-interventional studies and routinely collected healthcare data in postmarketing assessments conducted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
designWe reviewed and systematically assessed all referrals to the EMA made due to safety or efficacy concerns that were evaluated between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2017. We extracted information from the assessment report and the referral notification. Two reviewers independently assessed the contribution of non-interventional evidence to decision-making.
resultsThe preliminary evidence leading to the assessment in 52 eligible referrals was mostly from spontaneous reports (cited in 26 of 52 referrals) and randomised trials (22/52). In contrast, many evidence types were used for the full assessment. Non-interventional studies were frequently used in the full assessment for the evaluation of product safety (31/52) and product efficacy (18/52). In particular, non-interventional studies were relied on for the evaluation of safety and efficacy in subgroups, the evaluation of safety relating to a rare adverse event, understanding product usage and misuse and for evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures. The most common recommendations were changes to product information (43/52) and marketing authorisation withdrawal or suspension (12/52). In the majority of referrals, non-interventional evidence was judged to contribute to the decision made (30/52) and in three referrals it was the primary source of evidence.
conclusionsEuropean regulatory decision-making relies on multiple evidence types, particularly randomised trials, spontaneous reports and non-interventional studies. Non-interventional studies had an important role particularly for the characterisation and quantification of adverse events, the evaluation of product usage and for evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory action to minimise risk.
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.