ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Optimizing Patient Registries for Regulatory Decision Making - Key Learnings From an HMA/EMA Multistakeholder Workshop.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repurposing Registries: Completeness of Real-World Data for Regulatory and HTA Purposes in Three Cancer-Focused Registries.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Real-World Data for Safety Studies: Challenges and Opportunities From the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- The unregulated majority: who ensures quality in non-submission real-world studies?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Modifying disease registries to address the evolving field in rare diseases: the iSMAc/ITASMAc experience in spinal muscular atrophy.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Joint Heads of Medicines Agencies and European Medicines Agency's (HMA/EMA) big data initiative paves the way for better integration of real-world data, including data from patient registries, into regulatory decisions on medicines. This article focuses on the outcome of a two-day multistakeholder workshop organized by EMA in 2024, which explored ways to optimize the EMA qualification procedure for patient registries, and to establish the value and enable the use of these data across the full spectrum of research questions. Key recommendations include the need to clarify the aim, scope, and added value of the qualification of registries, coupled with a review of the procedural steps to ensure the process is fit-for-purpose to evaluate the use of registries in specific regulatory contexts. Further recommendations focused on strengthening interactions between stakeholders, as well as providing them with enhanced support by increasing awareness of publicly available tools that could leverage the potential of registry data, together with existing guidance. The European Medicines Regulatory Network is now working together with all relevant stakeholders, including the EMA scientific committees and working parties, the Joint HMA/EMA Network Data Steering Group and existing focus groups with external partners, to implement concrete actions that will address these recommendations. Among others, the update of existing guidance, the development of templates and Questions & Answers documents, and the design of appropriate communication and stakeholder engagement plans will aid in achieving the common goal of making optimal use of patient registry data to support public health in the European Union.
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.