ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2025
AMCP real-world evidence standards: Overcoming barriers to using real-world evidence in US payer decision-making.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing and prioritizing unmet medical needs: Findings from a patient and family caregiver workshop.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of large language models for appraising bias in real-world evidence studies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Equivalent effectiveness of a prescription binocular treatment for amblyopia in real-world practice.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
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
backgroundUS payers are interested in incorporating real-world evidence (RWE) into their pharmaceutical coverage and reimbursement decisions. One barrier to using RWE to inform decisions is the lack of standards for RWE assessment and interpretation specific to US payer needs.
objectiveTo develop RWE standards supporting US payer decision-making through a framework outlining study types and potential endpoints important to US payers throughout a product's life cycle and a set of criteria, tailored to US payer needs, for assessing and applying RWE.
methodsThe Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Research Institute, in partnership with IQVIA, convened a multistakeholder group of RWE experts to complete a survey and participate in a series of workshops with the goal of developing RWE standards tailored to payer decision-making needs. Informed by a targeted literature search, we created an initial list of RWE assessment criteria relevant to payers and refined by consensus and a framework describing RWE appropriate to different product life cycle stages from pre- to postapproval.
resultsA total of 36 payers completed the survey, and few (18%) reported regularly using RWE as part of their decision process; however, most (80%) were interested in using it. There was consensus on the need for a set of payer-specific standards. Through 2 focus groups and an AMCP Partnership Forum, participants vetted, refined, and finalized this payer-specific framework and developed a checklist that comprised a total of 29 RWE assessment criteria across 6 categories. This framework and set of criteria became the final AMCP RWE standards.
conclusionsThe AMCP RWE standards provide a tool to facilitate payer-specific assessments of RWE and guidance for designing RWE studies and communicating results that will be most impactful for payer formulary and coverage decisions.
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.