Good practices for real‐world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on real‐world evidence in health care decision making
View/ Open
Author
Berger, Marc L.
Sox, Harold
Willke, Richard J.
Brixner, Diana L.
Eichler, Hans‐Georg
Goettsch, Wim
Madigan, David
Makady, Amr
Tarricone, Rosanna
Watkins, John
Daniel Mullins, C.
Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4297Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Berger, M. L., H. Sox, R. J. Willke, D. L. Brixner, H. Eichler, W. Goettsch, D. Madigan, et al. 2017. “Good practices for real‐world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR‐ISPE Special Task Force on real‐world evidence in health care decision making.” Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 26 (9): 1033-1039. doi:10.1002/pds.4297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pds.4297.Abstract
Abstract Purpose Real‐world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. Methods: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus‐building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations. Results: The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making. Conclusion: The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders.Other Sources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639372/pdf/Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34492413
Collections
- HMS Scholarly Articles [17922]
- SPH Scholarly Articles [6362]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)