Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40601391›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025

Navigating the Real World: A Scoping Review of Structured Frameworks to Effectively Identify, Evaluate, and Select Real-World Data Sources for Fit-for-Purpose Studies.

Sonia Zebachi, Julien Tanniou, Elisabeth Bakker, Sieta T de Vries, Rossella Di Bidino, Entela Xoxi, Anna Glaser, Gianluigi Savarese, Jan Hillert, Peter G M Mol and 4 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

14 authors.

Sonia ZebachiQuinten Health, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1035-8690
Julien TanniouQuinten Health, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3806-2413
Elisabeth BakkerDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3359-9588
Sieta T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6090-2434
Rossella Di BidinoFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9773-856X
Entela XoxiAlta Scuola di Economia e Management dei Sistemi Sanitari (ALTEMS) - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0904-9225
Anna GlaserDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2221-9161
Gianluigi SavareseDepartment of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7732-0887
Jan HillertDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7386-6732
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4262-3180
Kelly PlueschkeEuropean Medicines Agency (EMA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1824-4148
Billy AmzalQuinten Health, Paris, France.
Ghinwa Y HayekQuinten Health, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7046-209X
Jeverson MoreiraQuinten Health, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3478-7158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential of real-world data (RWD), particularly from patient registries, has been increasingly recognized over the last decade by academia, regulators, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies for its role in assessing a product's effectiveness and supporting regulatory submissions. The selection of an appropriate RWD source is of primary concern, since the success of regulatory processes depends on the quality and relevance of the data. In more recent years, EMA and FDA have released extensive guidance on the use of RWD to produce evidence. Simultaneously, public and private research institutions have proposed structured frameworks developed to guide stakeholders in evaluating and selecting "fit-for-purpose" RWD sources. This scoping review provides an overview of these structured frameworks, identifying nine key tools, including the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST) and the Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (SPIFD2). Each framework is briefly described, followed by a comparative analysis of the criteria they assess. These criteria relate to dimensions such as study design, data reliability, data relevance, ethical considerations, and practical factors such as cost and feasibility. Our findings indicate that while these frameworks offer robust tools for ensuring the suitability of RWD sources, each has unique strengths and limitations depending on the specific context of use. By providing a comprehensive understanding of these frameworks, this review aims to assist stakeholders in identifying and/or evaluating and/or selecting the most appropriate RWD sources for generating high-quality evidence for regulatory and HTA purposes.

Indexed as

Research DesignTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansInformation SourcesRegistriesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID40601391
PMCPMC12439006

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.