Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33343857›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic advances in drug safety2020

Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature.

Marie-Laure Kürzinger, Ludivine Douarin, Ievgeniia Uzun, Chantal El-Haddad, William Hurst, Juhaeri Juhaeri, Stéphanie Tcherny-Lessenot

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Key attributes of health and environmental risk decision-making: A scoping review.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Method for Calculating the Simultaneous Maximum Acceptable Risk Threshold (SMART) from Discrete-Choice Experiment Benefit-Risk Studies.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Marie-Laure KürzingerGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, 1, Avenue Pierre Brossolette - 91385 Chilly-Mazarin, 91000, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2606-776X
Ludivine DouarinGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, France.
Ievgeniia UzunGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, Bridgewater, USA.
Chantal El-HaddadGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, France.
William HurstGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, Bridgewater, USA.
Juhaeri JuhaeriGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, Bridgewater, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8235-8388
Stéphanie Tcherny-LessenotGlobal Epidemiology & Benefit-Risk Evaluation, Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A favorable benefit-risk profile remains an essential requirement for marketing authorization of medicinal drugs and devices. Furthermore, prior subjective, implicit and inconsistent ad hoc benefit-risk assessment methods have rightly evolved towards more systematic, explicit or "structured" approaches. Contemporary structured benefit-risk evaluation aims at providing an objective assessment of the benefit-risk profile of medicinal products and a higher transparency for decision making purposes. The use of a descriptive framework should be the preferred starting point for a structured benefit-risk assessment. In support of more precise assessments, quantitative and semi-quantitative methodologies have been developed and utilized to complement descriptive or qualitative frameworks in order to facilitate the structured evaluation of the benefit-risk profile of medicinal products. In addition, quantitative structured benefit-risk analysis allows integration of patient preference data. Collecting patient perspectives throughout the medical product development process has become increasingly important and key to the regulatory decision-making process. Both industry and regulatory authorities increasingly rely on descriptive structured benefit-risk evaluation and frameworks in drug, vaccine and device evaluation and comparison. Although varied qualitative methods are more commonplace, quantitative approaches have recently been emphasized. However, it is unclear how frequently these quantitative frameworks have been used by pharmaceutical companies to support submission dossiers for drug approvals or to respond to the health authorities' requests. The objective of this study has been to identify and review, for the first time, currently available, published, structured, quantitative benefit-risk evaluations which may have informed health care professionals and/or payor as well as contributed to decision making purposes in the regulatory setting for drug, vaccine and/or device approval. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY:

Indexed as

benefit–riskdecision makingmulti-criteria decision analysispatient perspectivephysician perspectivequantitativeregulationregulatory perspectivestructured

Identifiers

PMID33343857
PMCPMC7727082

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.