Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35332434›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022

Target Trial Emulation for Transparent and Robust Estimation of Treatment Effects for Health Technology Assessment Using Real-World Data: Opportunities and Challenges.

Manuel Gomes, Nick Latimer, Marta Soares, Sofia Dias, Gianluca Baio, Nick Freemantle, Dalia Dawoud, Allan Wailoo, Richard Grieve

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Target Trial Emulation to Incorporate Real-World Data in the Estimation of the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Biologic Treatment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Roadmap to Innovation of HTA Methods (IHTAM): insights from three case studies of quantitative methods.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

Manuel GomesDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK. m.gomes@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1428-1232
Nick LatimerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Marta SoaresCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Sofia DiasCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Gianluca BaioDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Nick FreemantleInstitute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, UK.
Dalia DawoudScience, Policy and Research group, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Allan WailooSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Richard GrieveDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence about the relative effects of new treatments is typically collected in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In many instances, evidence from RCTs falls short of the needs of health technology assessment (HTA). For example, RCTs may not be able to capture longer-term treatment effects, or include all relevant comparators and outcomes required for HTA purposes. Information routinely collected about patients and the care they receive have been increasingly used to complement RCT evidence on treatment effects. However, such routine (or real-world) data are not collected for research purposes, so investigators have little control over the way patients are selected into the study or allocated to the different treatment groups, introducing biases for example due to selection or confounding. A promising approach to minimise common biases in non-randomised studies that use real-world data (RWD) is to apply design principles from RCTs. This approach, known as 'target trial emulation' (TTE), involves (1) developing the protocol with respect to core study design and analysis components of the hypothetical RCT that would answer the question of interest, and (2) applying this protocol to the RWD so that it mimics the data that would have been gathered for the RCT. By making the 'target trial' explicit, TTE helps avoid common design flaws and methodological pitfalls in the analysis of non-randomised studies, keeping each step transparent and accessible. It provides a coherent framework that embeds existing analytical methods to minimise confounding and helps identify potential limitations of RWD and the extent to which these affect the HTA decision. This paper provides a broad overview of TTE and discusses the opportunities and challenges of using this approach in HTA. We describe the basic principles of trial emulation, outline some areas where TTE using RWD can help complement RCT evidence in HTA, identify potential barriers to its adoption in the HTA setting and highlight some priorities for future work.

Indexed as

Research DesignTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.