Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41420643›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2025

Key Stakeholders' Knowledge, Opinions, and Interests on Real-World Evidence in the Regulatory Process-Results of an EU-Wide Survey.

Frank Lucas Depner, Martin Russek, Christoph Röthlein, Cornelia Becker, Jonas Peltner, Kerstin Pfeifer, Evy Reviers, Dirk De Valck, Julia Wicherski, Sirpa Hartikainen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Frank Lucas DepnerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Pharmacoepidemiology in Neurodegenerative Disorders, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0003-0408-5283
Martin RussekFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Research Division, Pharmacoepidemiology, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0007-9509-0342
Christoph RöthleinFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Research Division, Pharmacoepidemiology, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7795-4262
Cornelia BeckerFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Research Division, Pharmacoepidemiology, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4161-4407
Jonas PeltnerGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Pharmacoepidemiology in Neurodegenerative Disorders, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1682-7913
Kerstin PfeiferFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Research Division, Pharmacoepidemiology, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-8799-5851
Evy ReviersEuropean Organisation for Professionals and People with ALS (EUpALS), Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6044-5234
Dirk De ValckEuropean Organisation for Professionals and People with ALS (EUpALS), Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7868-2820
Julia WicherskiFederal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), Research Division, Pharmacoepidemiology, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9630-6239
Sirpa HartikainenSchool of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-4714-455X
Anna-Maija TolppanenSchool of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9270-9268
Britta HaenischGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Pharmacoepidemiology in Neurodegenerative Disorders, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4828-6058

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeStakeholder ParticipationTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAdultDecision MakingEuropean UnionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairespatientsRWDRWEstakeholderssurvey

Identifiers

PMID41420643
PMCPMC12717853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.