ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Opinions, and Interests on Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Process-Results of an EU-Wide Survey.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 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.
- 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
- Underprovision of Medical Compression Therapy: Retrospective Analysis Based on Statutory Health Insurance Data on Venous Leg Ulcers, Chronic Venous Disease and Comorbidities.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Opinions, and Interests on Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Process-Results of an EU-Wide Survey.Clinical and translational science · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are increasingly gaining attention in supporting drug regulatory decision making. This study assessed knowledge, opinions, and usage patterns of key stakeholders regarding the status of RWD/RWE and AI implementation in health technology assessment (HTA) and drug regulation and aimed to identify the primary obstacles hindering adoption of these technologies. Four surveys tailored to different stakeholders were created and disseminated online to the respective target groups, including I) regulatory authorities, HTA bodies, and the pharmaceutical industry, II) academia, III) payers, and IV) patients and physicians. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics or qualitative content analysis with inductive coding. The survey was active from May 6, 2024 to June 30, 2024. Altogether, 221 respondents participated in the survey. Among respondents from regulatory/HTA authorities or industry, 75.4% viewed RWD/RWE as important for future decision making. Respondents from this group already using RWD (n = 56) most frequently reported obstacles regarding data quality (89.3%), data access (62.5%), and data-coding standardization (57.1%). Patients and physicians predominantly had positive expectations about the use of RWD/RWE, and 94.3% indicated willingness to share healthcare data for research, but all respondents also expressed concerns, with data privacy being most frequently mentioned (75.5%). The results show that although stakeholders are optimistic about RWD/RWE implementation into regulatory practice, our survey suggests that successful implementation may benefit from further development in several areas, including guideline harmonization, RWD infrastructure optimization and accessibility, and professional education.
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.