Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41934228›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2026

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence Needs for Medicinal Products in Europe With a Focus on Real-World Evidence.

Maria Melinder, Fabian Windfuhr, Tanja Dahlqvist, Carla Torre, Bruno Sepodes, Peter G M Mol, Diogo Almeida, Isabella Ekheden, Nils Feltelius, Kit Roes and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Maria MelinderDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6820-4362
Fabian WindfuhrDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6065-2860
Tanja DahlqvistDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Carla TorreFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5542-9993
Bruno SepodesFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2761-0955
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4262-3180
Diogo AlmeidaFaculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5648-2800
Isabella EkhedenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0445-6630
Nils FelteliusDepartment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1460-4078
Kit RoesRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6775-1963
Sieta T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6090-2434
Björn WettermarkDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0531-2516

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess views among different stakeholders around evidence needs during assessment of clinical effects across the medicinal product life cycle, with a focus on real-world evidence (RWE) in regulatory and health technology assessor (HTA)/payer decision-making.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was distributed between November 2023-January 2024 to 1210 European regulators, HTAs, payers, and other stakeholders (i.e., industry, academia, healthcare professionals, and patient representatives). The survey included questions on their experience and views on evidence needs, which were analysed descriptively and with non-parametric testing.

results191 respondents (110 regulators, 24 HTA/payers and 57 others) from 32 European countries completed the survey (response rate: 16%). Most respondents were between 41-60 years and 53% had > 10 years of work experience. Respondents were least confident in assessing evidence based on adjusted indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses. Randomization and clinically relevant endpoints were considered most relevant in studies, while country-specific data and patient preferences were considered least important. Respondents acknowledged that there are uncertainties on the clinical effect of medicinal products in the different stages of the medicinal product life cycle, but the views on the usefulness of RWE to address these uncertainties varied across stakeholder groups and life-cycle stages. RWE was considered most likely to be accepted as supplementary evidence for orphan diseases and when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are infeasible.

conclusionOur findings highlight opportunities and challenges in using RWE to reduce uncertainties in decision-making around medicinal products. This may contribute to a dialogue on how and when to augment evidence from RCTs with RWE.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingEuropeHumansMiddle AgedStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and Questionnairesevidence needshealth technology assessmentreal world evidenceregulatory decision‐makingregulatory scienceRWE

Identifiers

PMID41934228
PMCPMC13049559

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.