ArticleBMJ open2025
Hospital-based real-world evidence in health technology assessment: insights from a scoping review of European, Australian and North American guidance and expert interviews.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHospital data can inform decision-makers with real-time evidence, yet it remains underutilised. This study aims to compare international health technology assessment (HTA) and regulatory real-world evidence (RWE) guidance, focusing on their applicability to hospital data. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsWe used a two-step sequential qualitative design: a scoping review and semi-structured interviews with HTA experts. We searched for RWE guidance for HTA in 12 countries: the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Canada, the US and Australia, along with the European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration. The expert interviews aimed to validate document selection and assess their applicability to hospital data. We analysed the interviews thematically.
resultsWe identified 19 guidance documents providing recommendations for RWE. Of these, four documents explicitly provided recommendations tailored to hospital data, while two others did so implicitly. The scope, definition and applications of RWE vary among guidance. Recommendations across all agencies mainly address the clinical-effectiveness domain, with limited guidance on quality-of-life and patient-reported outcomes, and none on real-world cost. The interviews identified seven themes playing a role in using hospital data: data-related, generalisability, ethical/legal, organisational, communication, governance and technology-related. Barriers included data availability, access, timeliness, quality, validation and heterogeneity. HTA experts emphasised the need for standardised policies.
conclusionsThere is a lack of harmonisation in assessing RWE among HTA and regulatory agencies. The available RWE guidance documents provide limited guidance on real-world hospital data. Considering their unique nature and to unlock their potential for HTA, we emphasise the need for more in-depth guidance tailored to the hospital context.
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.