ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
FRAME: Framework for Real-World Evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence Uncertainties for Efficacy/Effectiveness - An Evaluation of Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision Making.
Article 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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward the Use of Real-World Data for Regulatory and HTA Decision-Making: Experiences and Recommendations from Six EU-Funded Projects.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Real World Data and Its Impact on the Management of Plasma Cell Dyscrasias.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2026Review
- Demonstrating transportability of real-world evidence: what do HTA bodies and health technology developers need?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization Results Among Hospitalized Adults with Cystic Fibrosis Treated with Ceftolozane/Tazobactam: A SPECTRA Real-World Subgroup Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Prescribing Patterns and Clinical Effectiveness of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam for ESBL-Producing Enterobacterales: A SPECTRA Real-World Multi-Country Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mapping the Use of Real-World Evidence Across the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation: Methodological Considerations, Challenges, and Opportunities for Harmonization.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Prescribing Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam by Renal Function and Body Mass Index: A SPECTRA Real-World Multi-Country Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emulating the LEADER trial in China: a regulatory science case study on non-interventional research.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- R WE ready for reimbursement? A round-up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 21.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-World Evidence (RWE) is increasingly used in submissions to regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies (HTAbs) to support the efficacy and effectiveness of new medicines and indications. However, there is limited information on the RWE characteristics that impact its role in approval and reimbursement decisions. To investigate these characteristics, we developed FRAME: a Framework for Real-world evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence uncertainties for efficacy/effectiveness. We compiled a list of medicinal product indications where RWE supported the efficacy of interventional trials or assessed effectiveness in observational settings. FRAME was applied to a prioritized subset of these submissions to authorities from North America, Europe, and Australia. For each product indication, we extracted information on characteristics describing the submission, clinical context, strength of evidence, and process factors from publicly available assessment reports. Of the 87 identified medicinal product indications, 15 were prioritized, covering 68 submissions and 76 RWE studies across 11 authorities in scope. Four main results emerged: (i) low granularity within assessment reports on the analyzed variables, limiting the learnings from analyzing them; (ii) variability in how RWE was assessed within and across regulatory agencies and HTAbs; (iii) a positive association between the proportion of positive comments from authorities on RWE studies and their impact on decision making. Particularly, a large effect size was consistently noted when RWE was considered primary evidence; and (iv) limited use of advanced RWE study designs. These findings support five recommendations to enhance shared learning on RWE, clarify its evidentiary value, and generate evidence to better support authorities' decision making.
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.