[Real-world data for comparative effectiveness research: Taking stock of available data sources in Germany with special regard to registries].

IF 1.4 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Malik Cakir, Paula Starke, Alexandra Nolting, Wendi Qu, Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes
{"title":"[Real-world data for comparative effectiveness research: Taking stock of available data sources in Germany with special regard to registries].","authors":"Malik Cakir, Paula Starke, Alexandra Nolting, Wendi Qu, Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2025.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using real-world data (RWD) for comparative effectiveness research has gained increasing attention. Real-world data is usually not collected with the primary aim of answering questions about the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions. Therefore, data collection is often not optimally designed for this purpose. For this reason, using it can be associated with several data-related or analysis-related problems. This article has two aims: First of all, we will outline the basic requirements for comparative non-randomized studies based on RWD. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of potentially eligible RWD in Germany will be considered. In particular, the use of registry data will be discussed, as these currently appear to be the most suitable for comparing the effectiveness of interventions. There are now various databases in Germany that contain RWD and can potentially be used for comparative effectiveness research. If they contain all the necessary information and if the data are of sufficient quality, they could offer a timely and efficient way of determining the effectiveness of medical interventions. However, our analysis shows that the use of this data is sometimes associated with considerable limitations. RWD is often highly aggregated and thus may not be sufficiently detailed to select the subjects precisely or to emulate the intervention or control interventions satisfactorily. In addition, many data sources only encompass a limited set of variables and limited time horizons (e.g., only hospitalization) according to their intended purpose (e.g., billing). Therefore, it is often questionable whether this includes all endpoints on benefit and harm that are important for the assessment and whether sufficiently long observation horizons/follow-up periods are given. Similarly, it is often questionable whether all necessary data to avoid bias are included. Furthermore, it is often difficult to assess suitability in advance due to the lack of available information.</p>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2025.01.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using real-world data (RWD) for comparative effectiveness research has gained increasing attention. Real-world data is usually not collected with the primary aim of answering questions about the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions. Therefore, data collection is often not optimally designed for this purpose. For this reason, using it can be associated with several data-related or analysis-related problems. This article has two aims: First of all, we will outline the basic requirements for comparative non-randomized studies based on RWD. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of potentially eligible RWD in Germany will be considered. In particular, the use of registry data will be discussed, as these currently appear to be the most suitable for comparing the effectiveness of interventions. There are now various databases in Germany that contain RWD and can potentially be used for comparative effectiveness research. If they contain all the necessary information and if the data are of sufficient quality, they could offer a timely and efficient way of determining the effectiveness of medical interventions. However, our analysis shows that the use of this data is sometimes associated with considerable limitations. RWD is often highly aggregated and thus may not be sufficiently detailed to select the subjects precisely or to emulate the intervention or control interventions satisfactorily. In addition, many data sources only encompass a limited set of variables and limited time horizons (e.g., only hospitalization) according to their intended purpose (e.g., billing). Therefore, it is often questionable whether this includes all endpoints on benefit and harm that are important for the assessment and whether sufficiently long observation horizons/follow-up periods are given. Similarly, it is often questionable whether all necessary data to avoid bias are included. Furthermore, it is often difficult to assess suitability in advance due to the lack of available information.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
129
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信