ReviewPragmatic and observational research2025
Review of Challenges in Performing Real-World Evidence Studies for Nonprescription Products.
Review in Pragmatic and observational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, regulatory authorities have signaled a willingness to consider real-world evidence (RWE) data to support applications for new claims and indications for pharmaceuticals. Historically, RWE studies have been the domain of prescription drugs, driven by the fact that clinical data on patients are routinely captured in medical records, claims databases, registries, etc. However, RWE reports of nonprescription drugs and supplements are relatively sparse due to methodological gaps in this area. The objective of this narrative review is to identify which RWE methodologies have been used to study nonprescription products. A total of 49 articles were included based on literature searches. Label comprehension studies, used to support prescription-to-nonprescription switches, are useful in determining how nonprescription products will be used; however, they provide no actual clinical data. The most common RWE studies of nonprescription products were cross-sectional surveys, which investigated a broad range of indications and were conducted in an array of settings, including online, by phone, point-of-sale (pharmacy), outpatient clinics, and shopping malls. However, while this type of study is effective for identifying use patterns and attitudes in the general population, recall bias limits the ability to collect safety and effectiveness data. Studies of electronic medical records and claims databases are hampered by incomplete or absent capturing of data on nonprescription products. As a result, most RWE studies to date have provided limited useful information. Although case reports and expert opinion should not be discounted, in the absence of other information they provide few actual data. Novel approaches using smartphone apps and artificial intelligence may provide new opportunities to collect RWE for nonprescription products, but these areas of research are in their infancy. Overall, there is a need to develop standards for execution of RWE studies of nonprescription products in terms of endpoints, study design, and study quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.