Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38020096›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023

Real-world evidence for regulatory decision-making: updated guidance from around the world.

Leah Burns, Nadege Le Roux, Robert Kalesnik-Orszulak, Jennifer Christian, Jennifer Dudinak, Frank Rockhold, Sean Khozin, John O'Donnell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

Leah BurnsWorldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Nadege Le RouxRegulatory Intelligence, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boudry, Switzerland.
Robert Kalesnik-OrszulakGlobal Regulatory Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, United States.
Jennifer ChristianTarget RWE, Durham, NC, United States.
Jennifer DudinakGlobal Regulatory Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Summit, NJ, United States.
Frank RockholdDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, United States.
Sean KhozinMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.
John O'DonnellWorldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leveraging the value of real-world evidence (RWE) to make informed regulatory decisions in the field of health care continues to gain momentum. Improving clinical evidence generation by evaluating the outcomes and patient experiences at the point-of-care would help achieve the ultimate aim of ensuring that effective and safe treatments are rapidly approved for patient use. In our previous publication, we assessed the global regulatory landscape with respect to RWE and provided a review of the regional availability of frameworks and guidance through May 2021 on the basis of 3 key regulatory elements: regulatory RWE frameworks, data quality guidance, and study methods guidance. In the current review, we have updated and elaborated upon recent developments in the regulatory RWE environment from a regional perspective under the same 3 regulatory elements stated above. In addition, we have also included a new category on procedural guidance. The review also discusses the perceived gaps and potential opportunities for future development and harmonization in this field to support framework establishment in regions without pre-existing RWE policies. Additionally, the article reviews current developments of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies pertaining to RWE and discusses the status of evidentiary alignment among regulators and HTA agencies.

Indexed as

health technology assessmentreal-world datareal-world data quality methodsreal-world evidencereal-world evidence regulatory frameworksreal-world study methodsregulatory decision-making

Identifiers

PMID38020096
PMCPMC10643567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.