Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37471605›Full record

ReviewDiabetes care2023

A Road Map for Peer Review of Real-World Evidence Studies on Safety and Effectiveness of Treatments.

Almut G Winterstein, Vera Ehrenstein, Jeffrey S Brown, Til Stürmer, Meredith Y Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetes care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

5 authors.

Almut G WintersteinDepartment of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Department of Epidemiology, and Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-6518-5961
Vera EhrensteinInternational Network for Epidemiology in Policy, American College of Epidemiology, Washington Avenue Extension, Albany, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-3415-3254
Jeffrey S BrownInternational Network for Epidemiology in Policy, American College of Epidemiology, Washington Avenue Extension, Albany, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-9340-7189
Til StürmerInternational Network for Epidemiology in Policy, American College of Epidemiology, Washington Avenue Extension, Albany, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-9204-7177
Meredith Y SmithInternational Network for Epidemiology in Policy, American College of Epidemiology, Washington Avenue Extension, Albany, NY.ORCID 0000-0003-4542-5099

Funding

North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UM1TR004406 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI NICHOLAS J SHAHEEN · 2023 to 2026
$37.5M
Propensity scores and preventive drug use in the elderlyR01AG056479 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Til Sturmer · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
Racial Differences in Treatment with Hysterectomy: a Multilevel InvestigationR01MD011680 · NIMHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROBINSON, WHITNEY RAGAN · 2017 to 2021
$3.3M
Methods for Estimating Sex Differences in Safety and Effectiveness of DrugsR01HL118255 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI JONSSON FUNK, MICHELE LAURA · 2014 to 2017
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004406NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL118255NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056479NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD011680
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing acceptance of real-world evidence (RWE) in clinical and regulatory decision-making, coupled with increasing availability of health care data and advances in automated analytic approaches, has contributed to a marked expansion of RWE studies of diabetes and other diseases. However, a recent spate of high-profile retractions highlights the need for improvements in the conduct of RWE research as well as in the associated peer review and editorial processes. We review best pharmacoepidemiologic practices and common pitfalls regarding design, measurement, analysis, data validity, appropriateness, and generalizability of RWE studies. To enhance RWE study assessments, we propose that journal editors require 1) study authors to complete RECORD-PE, a reporting guideline for pharmacoepidemiological studies on routinely collected data, 2) availability of predetermined study protocols and analysis plans, 3) inclusion of pharmacoepidemiologists on the peer review team, and 4) provision of detail on data provenance, characterization, and custodianship to facilitate assessment of the data source. We recognize that none of these steps guarantees a high-quality research study. Collectively, however, they permit an informed assessment of whether the study was adequately designed and conducted and whether the data source used was fit for purpose.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePeer ReviewHumans

Identifiers

PMID37471605
PMCPMC10369122

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.