Navigating the Real World: A Scoping Review of Structured Frameworks to Effectively Identify, Evaluate, and Select Real-World Data Sources for Fit-for-Purpose Studies.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Sonia Zebachi, Julien Tanniou, Elisabeth Bakker, Sieta T de Vries, Rossella Di Bidino, Entela Xoxi, Anna Glaser, Gianluigi Savarese, Jan Hillert, Peter G M Mol, Kelly Plueschke, Billy Amzal, Ghinwa Y Hayek, Jeverson Moreira
{"title":"Navigating the Real World: A Scoping Review of Structured Frameworks to Effectively Identify, Evaluate, and Select Real-World Data Sources for Fit-for-Purpose Studies.","authors":"Sonia Zebachi, Julien Tanniou, Elisabeth Bakker, Sieta T de Vries, Rossella Di Bidino, Entela Xoxi, Anna Glaser, Gianluigi Savarese, Jan Hillert, Peter G M Mol, Kelly Plueschke, Billy Amzal, Ghinwa Y Hayek, Jeverson Moreira","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The potential of real-world data (RWD), particularly from patient registries, has been increasingly recognized over the last decade by academia, regulators, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies for its role in assessing a product's effectiveness and supporting regulatory submissions. The selection of an appropriate RWD source is of primary concern, since the success of regulatory processes depends on the quality and relevance of the data. In more recent years, EMA and FDA have released extensive guidance on the use of RWD to produce evidence. Simultaneously, public and private research institutions have proposed structured frameworks developed to guide stakeholders in evaluating and selecting \"fit-for-purpose\" RWD sources. This scoping review provides an overview of these structured frameworks, identifying nine key tools, including the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST) and the Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (SPIFD2). Each framework is briefly described, followed by a comparative analysis of the criteria they assess. These criteria relate to dimensions such as study design, data reliability, data relevance, ethical considerations, and practical factors such as cost and feasibility. Our findings indicate that while these frameworks offer robust tools for ensuring the suitability of RWD sources, each has unique strengths and limitations depending on the specific context of use. By providing a comprehensive understanding of these frameworks, this review aims to assist stakeholders in identifying and/or evaluating and/or selecting the most appropriate RWD sources for generating high-quality evidence for regulatory and HTA purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3746","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The potential of real-world data (RWD), particularly from patient registries, has been increasingly recognized over the last decade by academia, regulators, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies for its role in assessing a product's effectiveness and supporting regulatory submissions. The selection of an appropriate RWD source is of primary concern, since the success of regulatory processes depends on the quality and relevance of the data. In more recent years, EMA and FDA have released extensive guidance on the use of RWD to produce evidence. Simultaneously, public and private research institutions have proposed structured frameworks developed to guide stakeholders in evaluating and selecting "fit-for-purpose" RWD sources. This scoping review provides an overview of these structured frameworks, identifying nine key tools, including the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST) and the Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (SPIFD2). Each framework is briefly described, followed by a comparative analysis of the criteria they assess. These criteria relate to dimensions such as study design, data reliability, data relevance, ethical considerations, and practical factors such as cost and feasibility. Our findings indicate that while these frameworks offer robust tools for ensuring the suitability of RWD sources, each has unique strengths and limitations depending on the specific context of use. By providing a comprehensive understanding of these frameworks, this review aims to assist stakeholders in identifying and/or evaluating and/or selecting the most appropriate RWD sources for generating high-quality evidence for regulatory and HTA purposes.

导航现实世界:有效识别、评估和选择适合目的研究的真实世界数据源的结构化框架的范围审查。
在过去十年中,学术界、监管机构和卫生技术评估(HTA)机构越来越认识到真实世界数据(RWD)的潜力,特别是来自患者登记的数据,因为它在评估产品有效性和支持监管提交方面的作用。选择适当的RWD来源是主要关注的问题,因为管理过程的成功取决于数据的质量和相关性。近年来,EMA和FDA发布了大量关于使用RWD提供证据的指南。同时,公共和私营研究机构提出了结构化框架,以指导利益攸关方评估和选择“适合用途”的RWD资源。本范围审查概述了这些结构化框架,确定了9个关键工具,包括注册中心评估和质量标准工具(REQueST)和识别符合目的数据的结构化过程(SPIFD2)。对每个框架进行简要描述,然后对它们评估的标准进行比较分析。这些标准涉及研究设计、数据可靠性、数据相关性、伦理考虑以及成本和可行性等实际因素。我们的研究结果表明,虽然这些框架为确保RWD来源的适用性提供了强大的工具,但根据具体的使用背景,每个框架都有其独特的优势和局限性。通过提供对这些框架的全面理解,本综述旨在帮助利益相关者识别和/或评估和/或选择最合适的RWD来源,为监管和HTA目的提供高质量的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信