Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31662354›Full record

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.

Jeremy Philip Brown, Kevin Wing, Stephen J Evans, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Liam Smeeth, Ian J Douglas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The EU project Real4Reg: unlocking real-world data with AI.Health research policy and systems · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Fast Methods for Drug Approval: Research Perspectives for Pandemic Preparedness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

6 authors.

Jeremy Philip BrownDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK jeremy.brown@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9941-7759
Kevin WingDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Stephen J EvansDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Krishnan BhaskaranDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Liam SmeethDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ian J DouglasDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802403Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 098504/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

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

Drug and Narcotic ControlEvidence-Based PracticeProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingData CollectionDecision MakingDrug ApprovalEuropean UnionHumansNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmedicines regulationnon-interventional studiesreal world evidence

Identifiers

PMID31662354
PMCPMC6830614

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.