Finding the right tool for the specific task: navigating RWE tools and checklists.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Future oncology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1080/14796694.2025.2552098
Richard Willke, Paul Cottu, Andrew Briggs, Uwe Siebert, Connie Chen, Beata Korytowsky, Julien Heidt, Meghan Renfrow, Kate Lovett, Adam Brufsky
{"title":"Finding the right tool for the specific task: navigating RWE tools and checklists.","authors":"Richard Willke, Paul Cottu, Andrew Briggs, Uwe Siebert, Connie Chen, Beata Korytowsky, Julien Heidt, Meghan Renfrow, Kate Lovett, Adam Brufsky","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2552098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to support product approvals and label expansions, as well as clinical and payer decision-making. Various tools (e.g. frameworks, checklists) have been developed to help inform and assess the robustness and quality of real-world study design and reporting. This targeted review provides a practical guide for leveraging these tools to increase awareness and utility for decision-makers. A pre-defined search strategy was applied to identify articles from PubMed. Articles published from 1 January 2020, through 4 October 2024 were included and reviewed to identify relevant tools aimed at assessing RWE study planning, reporting, or quality assessment. Key information regarding each was extracted and summarized including strengths, limitations, and included domains. 119 articles were initially identified, of which 15 were included after screening, referencing a total of 17 tools. These 17 tools varied in format and structure, ranging from detailed guidelines and templates to checklists and questionnaires. Utility and application of the tools identified in this targeted review vary across the evaluation of study planning, reporting, and quality. Selection of the appropriate tool depends on several factors including intended purpose of the tool, intended real-world study design, and the availability of study documentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"3075-3089"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12490408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2552098","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to support product approvals and label expansions, as well as clinical and payer decision-making. Various tools (e.g. frameworks, checklists) have been developed to help inform and assess the robustness and quality of real-world study design and reporting. This targeted review provides a practical guide for leveraging these tools to increase awareness and utility for decision-makers. A pre-defined search strategy was applied to identify articles from PubMed. Articles published from 1 January 2020, through 4 October 2024 were included and reviewed to identify relevant tools aimed at assessing RWE study planning, reporting, or quality assessment. Key information regarding each was extracted and summarized including strengths, limitations, and included domains. 119 articles were initially identified, of which 15 were included after screening, referencing a total of 17 tools. These 17 tools varied in format and structure, ranging from detailed guidelines and templates to checklists and questionnaires. Utility and application of the tools identified in this targeted review vary across the evaluation of study planning, reporting, and quality. Selection of the appropriate tool depends on several factors including intended purpose of the tool, intended real-world study design, and the availability of study documentation.

为特定任务找到正确的工具:导航RWE工具和检查表。
真实世界证据(RWE)越来越多地用于支持产品批准和标签扩展,以及临床和付款人决策。已经开发了各种工具(例如框架、检查表)来帮助告知和评估现实世界研究设计和报告的稳健性和质量。这种有针对性的审查为利用这些工具来提高决策者的认识和效用提供了实用指南。应用预定义的搜索策略从PubMed中识别文章。纳入并审查了从2020年1月1日至2024年10月4日发表的文章,以确定旨在评估RWE研究计划、报告或质量评估的相关工具。提取并总结了每一种方法的关键信息,包括优点、局限性和包括的领域。初步确定119篇文章,筛选后纳入15篇,共参考了17种工具。这17种工具的格式和结构各不相同,从详细的指导方针和模板到清单和问卷。在本目标综述中确定的工具的效用和应用在研究计划、报告和质量的评估中各不相同。选择合适的工具取决于几个因素,包括工具的预期目的、预期的现实世界研究设计和研究文档的可用性。
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
Future oncology
Future oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.00%
发文量
335
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Oncology (ISSN 1479-6694) provides a forum for a new era of cancer care. The journal focuses on the most important advances and highlights their relevance in the clinical setting. Furthermore, Future Oncology delivers essential information in concise, at-a-glance article formats - vital in delivering information to an increasingly time-constrained community. The journal takes a forward-looking stance toward the scientific and clinical issues, together with the economic and policy issues that confront us in this new era of cancer care. The journal includes literature awareness such as the latest developments in radiotherapy and immunotherapy, concise commentary and analysis, and full review articles all of which provide key findings, translational to the clinical setting.
×
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