Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41184774›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2025

Enhancing confidence in complex health technology assessments by using real-world evidence: highlighting existing strategies for effective drug evaluation.

Alison Antoine, Katia Desroziers, Julien Dupin, David Pérol, Rémy Choquet

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Alison Antoine *Roche, 4 Cr de l'Île Seguin, Boulogne-Billancourt, 92100, France.
Katia Desroziers *Roche, 4 Cr de l'Île Seguin, Boulogne-Billancourt, 92100, France. katia.desroziers@roche.com.
Julien DupinJanssen-Cilag, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France.
David PérolCentre Léon Bérard, Clinical Research, Lyon, France.
Rémy ChoquetRoche, 4 Cr de l'Île Seguin, Boulogne-Billancourt, 92100, France.

Funding

National French Research and Technology Association (ANRT) CIFRE doctoral fellowship no. 2020/1054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating new therapies but have limitations, notably in terms of external validity. Real-world data (RWD) studies could complement RCT evidence. However, a consensus has not yet been reached on situations where RWD could offer rigorous complementary evidence to an RCT when evaluating the effectiveness of therapeutic innovations. This research aims to: (1) propose a categorisation of complex clinical situations; (2) classify the real-world evidence (RWE) approaches to be used in each situation to help reduce uncertainties or provide further evidence in drug benefit assessments; (3) summarise the best methodological considerations to adopt when using these RWE approaches; and (4) propose general recommendations to increase confidence in the use of RWE approaches during the assessment process. The main recommendations within the framework around the RWD-generation plan for complex evaluations are related to four main issues: quality (establishing criteria and standards for quality data), methodology (ensuring the use of the best methodological approaches), transparency (from the industry and from the health technology agencies (HTAs) and sharing/collaborating across countries and HTAs (promoting collaboration between HTAs and involving all parties). Our proposal and recommendations could help the scientific community better consider the therapeutic value of innovations through RWD, so that their potential can be fully realised to benefit the quality of care and the regulation of the healthcare system.

Indexed as

Drug EvaluationEvidence-Based MedicineTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignDrug evaluationHealth policy.Health technology assessmentMethodologyRandomised clinical trialsReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID41184774
PMCPMC12581489

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.