Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39987538›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2025

Stakeholders' Perspectives Toward the Use of Patient Registry Data for Decision-Making on Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Fabian Windfuhr, Sieta T de Vries, Maria Melinder, Tanja Dahlqvist, Diogo Almeida, Bruno Sepodes, Carla Torre, Björn Wettermark, Peter G M Mol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

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

9 authors.

Fabian WindfuhrDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6065-2860
Sieta T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6090-2434
Maria MelinderDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tanja DahlqvistDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Diogo AlmeidaFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5648-2800
Bruno SepodesFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2761-0955
Carla TorreFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5542-9993
Björn WettermarkDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0531-2516
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. p.g.m.mol@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4262-3180

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme 101095479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of patient registries in regulatory, health technology assessment (HTA), and payer decision-making has gained increasing attention in recent years. Stakeholders' perspectives toward the use of registry-based real-world evidence (RWE) are unknown.

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess stakeholders' perspectives toward the use of RWE from patient registries in decision-making on medicines and explore factors influencing their intention to use registry data in the future.

methodsEuropean regulators, HTA/payers, and other stakeholders (industry, academia, healthcare professionals, patient representatives) were invited by email to participate in a web-based survey. The survey was open between November 2023 and January 2024 and contained 24 questions including demographics and questions about perspectives toward registry-based data for decision-making purposes. The latter consisted of 5-point Likert scale items based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), i.e., attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and intention. Descriptive analyses and a logistic regression analysis (outcome: intention; determinants: demographics, attitudes, subjective norm, behavioral control) were performed.

resultsIncluded were 191 respondents (response rate: 16%), of whom 110 were regulators (58%), 24 HTA/payers (13%), and 54 other stakeholders (28%). Most respondents were between 41 and 50 years old (32%), 65% were women, and 53% had > 10 years work experience. Respondents considered registry data in the medicinal product lifecycle most informative for characterization of disease epidemiology (mean 4.4; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-4.5), and least informative for comparative effectiveness (mean 3.6; 95% CI 3.4-3.7). Reaching the relevant patient population was perceived as the biggest strength (mean 3.6; 95% CI 3.4-3.8), and data quality as the largest weakness of patient registries (mean 2.4; 95% CI 2.2-2.6). Compared with regulators, HTA/payers had a similar intention to use registry data (Odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% CI 0.47-5.16), while other stakeholders were more frequently very open (intention) to using registry data in the future (OR 8.48; 95% CI 3.00-23.98). Respondents from organizations in Northern Europe were less often very open to using registry data in the future than respondents from multinational organizations (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.04-0.85). Finally, respondents with a high perceived behavioral control concerning the use of registry data were more often very open to using registry data in the future than respondents with a neutral or low perceived behavioral control (OR 3.45; 95% CI 1.37-8.64).

conclusionsThe participants in our survey were generally open to increasing the use of registry data in the future. Nevertheless, perceived weaknesses such as data quality and accessibility will need to be addressed to align and improve stakeholders' perspectives on the use of patient registries as an evidence basis for medicines decision-making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRegistriesStakeholder ParticipationAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID39987538
PMCPMC12174299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.