Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38871437›Full record

ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2024

Assessing Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records for Health Technology Assessment: The SUITABILITY Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Rachael L Fleurence, Seamus Kent, Blythe Adamson, James Tcheng, Ran Balicer, Joseph S Ross, Kevin Haynes, Patrick Muller, Jon Campbell, Elsa Bouée-Benhamiche and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. The use of real-world evidence among healthcare payers: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Generative Artificial Intelligence for Health Technology Assessment: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policy Considerations: An ISPOR Working Group Report.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2025
    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

12 authors.

Rachael L FleurenceOffice of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: rachael.fleurence@nih.gov.
Seamus KentErasmus School of Health & Policy Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Blythe AdamsonFlatiron Health, New York, NY, USA.
James TchengDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ran BalicerClalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Joseph S RossYale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Kevin HaynesJanssen Research and Development, Titusville, NJ, USA.
Patrick MullerCentre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester or London, England, UK.
Jon CampbellNational Pharmaceutical Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Elsa Bouée-BenhamichePublic Health and Healthcare Division, Institut National du Cancer, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Sebastián García MartíHealth Technology Assessment and Health Economics Department, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Scott RamseyHutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: sramsey@fredhutch.org.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 OD999999NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This ISPOR Good Practices report provides a framework for assessing the suitability of electronic health records data for use in health technology assessments (HTAs). Although electronic health record (EHR) data can fill evidence gaps and improve decisions, several important limitations can affect its validity and relevance. The ISPOR framework includes 2 components: data delineation and data fitness for purpose. Data delineation provides a complete understanding of the data and an assessment of its trustworthiness by describing (1) data characteristics; (2) data provenance; and (3) data governance. Fitness for purpose comprises (1) data reliability items, ie, how accurate and complete the estimates are for answering the question at hand and (2) data relevance items, which assess how well the data are suited to answer the particular question from a decision-making perspective. The report includes a checklist specific to EHR data reporting: the ISPOR SUITABILITY Checklist. It also provides recommendations for HTA agencies and policy makers to improve the use of EHR-derived data over time. The report concludes with a discussion of limitations and future directions in the field, including the potential impact from the substantial and rapid advances in the diffusion and capabilities of large language models and generative artificial intelligence. The report's immediate audiences are HTA evidence developers and users. We anticipate that it will also be useful to other stakeholders, particularly regulators and manufacturers, in the future.

Indexed as

ChecklistElectronic Health RecordsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAdvisory CommitteesDecision MakingHumansReproducibility of Resultsdata qualityelectronic health recordshealth technology assessmentreal-world datareal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID38871437
PMCPMC11182651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.