Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27529762›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2016

GetReal in mathematical modelling: a review of studies predicting drug effectiveness in the real world.

Klea Panayidou, Sandro Gsteiger, Matthias Egger, Gablu Kilcher, Máximo Carreras, Orestis Efthimiou, Thomas P A Debray, Sven Trelle, Noemi Hummel, GetReal methods review group

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Improving Realism in Clinical Trial Simulations via Real-World Data.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2017
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. A Novel Mathematical Model of Glaucoma Pathogenesis.Journal of current glaucoma practice
    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

10 authors.

Klea PanayidouInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sandro GsteigerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. matthias.egger@ispm.unibe.ch.
Gablu KilcherInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Máximo CarrerasF. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Orestis EfthimiouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece.
Thomas P A DebrayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sven TrelleInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Noemi HummelInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
GetReal methods review group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The performance of a drug in a clinical trial setting often does not reflect its effect in daily clinical practice. In this third of three reviews, we examine the applications that have been used in the literature to predict real-world effectiveness from randomized controlled trial efficacy data. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE from inception to March 2014, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and websites of key journals and organisations and reference lists. We extracted data on the type of model and predictions, data sources, validation and sensitivity analyses, disease area and software. We identified 12 articles in which four approaches were used: multi-state models, discrete event simulation models, physiology-based models and survival and generalized linear models. Studies predicted outcomes over longer time periods in different patient populations, including patients with lower levels of adherence or persistence to treatment or examined doses not tested in trials. Eight studies included individual patient data. Seven examined cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and three neurological conditions. Most studies included sensitivity analyses, but external validation was performed in only three studies. We conclude that mathematical modelling to predict real-world effectiveness of drug interventions is not widely used at present and not well validated. © 2016 The Authors Research Synthesis Methods Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPharmaceutical PreparationsCardiovascular DiseasesComputer SimulationDatabases, BibliographicDrug EvaluationDrug TherapyHumansLinear ModelsMetabolic DiseasesNervous System DiseasesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSoftwarePharmaceutical Preparationscomparative effectiveness researchefficacy-effectiveness gaphealth technology assessmentmathematical modellingprediction

Identifiers

PMID27529762
PMCPMC5129568

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.