Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38967245›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2024

RWE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 16.

Alejandra Castanon, Antonia Tsvetanova, Sreeram V Ramagopalan

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alejandra CastanonLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.
Antonia TsvetanovaLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.
Sreeram V RamagopalanLane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, W1U 1DQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this update, we discuss recent US FDA guidance offering more specific guidelines on appropriate study design and analysis to support causal inference for non-interventional studies and the launch of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) public electronic catalogues. We also highlight an article recommending assessing data quality and suitability prior to protocol finalization and a

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalComparative Effectiveness ResearchHumansModels, EconomicReimbursement MechanismsResearch DesignUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administrationcausal inferencecausal language frameworkdata quality assessmentFDA guidancehealth technology assessmentlarge language modelsnon-interventional studiespublic electronic cataloguesreal-world datareal-world evidencestudy design

Identifiers

PMID38967245
PMCPMC11284810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.