Cargando…
Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making
Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide valuable comparisons of 2 or more interventions to inform health care decision making; however, many more comparisons are required than available time and resources to conduct them. Moreover, RCTs have limited generalizability. Comparative effec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10391288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33377442 http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.1.095 |
_version_ | 1785082673368137728 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Shuxian Graff, Jennifer Yun, Sophia Beal, Brennan Ta, Jamie T Bansal, Aasthaa Carlson, Joshua J Veenstra, David L Basu, Anirban Devine, Beth |
author_facet | Chen, Shuxian Graff, Jennifer Yun, Sophia Beal, Brennan Ta, Jamie T Bansal, Aasthaa Carlson, Joshua J Veenstra, David L Basu, Anirban Devine, Beth |
author_sort | Chen, Shuxian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide valuable comparisons of 2 or more interventions to inform health care decision making; however, many more comparisons are required than available time and resources to conduct them. Moreover, RCTs have limited generalizability. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using real-world evidence (RWE) can increase generalizability and is important for decision making, but use of nonrandomized designs makes their evaluation challenging. Several tools are available to assist. In this study, we comparatively characterize 5 tools used to evaluate RWE studies in the context of making health care adoption decision making: (1) Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist, (2) IMI GetReal RWE Navigator (Navigator), (3) Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP) RWE Decoder, (4) CER Collaborative tool, and (5) Real World Evidence Assessments and Needs Guidance (REAdi) tool. We describe each and then compare their features along 8 domains: (1) objective/user/context, (2) development/scope, (3) platform/presentation, (4) user design, (5) study-level internal/external validity of evidence, (6) summarizing body of evidence, (7) assisting in decision making, and (8) sharing results/making improvements. Our summary suggests that the GRACE Checklist aids stakeholders in evaluation of the quality and applicability of individual CER studies. Navigator is a collection of educational resources to guide demonstration of effectiveness, a guidance tool to support development of medicines, and a directory of authoritative resources for RWE. The CMTP RWE Decoder aids in the assessment of relevance and rigor of RWE. The CER Collaborative tool aids in the assessment of credibility and relevance. The REAdi tool aids in refinement of the research question, study retrieval, quality assessment, grading the body of evidence, and prompts with questions to facilitate coverage decisions. All tools specify a framework, were designed with stakeholder input, assess internal validity, are available online, and are easy to use. They vary in their complexity and comprehensiveness. The RWE Decoder, CER Collaborative tool, and REAdi tool synthesize evidence and were specifically designed to aid formulary decision making. This study adds clarity on what the tools provide so that the user can determine which best fits a given purpose. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10391288 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103912882023-08-02 Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making Chen, Shuxian Graff, Jennifer Yun, Sophia Beal, Brennan Ta, Jamie T Bansal, Aasthaa Carlson, Joshua J Veenstra, David L Basu, Anirban Devine, Beth J Manag Care Spec Pharm Best Practices Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide valuable comparisons of 2 or more interventions to inform health care decision making; however, many more comparisons are required than available time and resources to conduct them. Moreover, RCTs have limited generalizability. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) using real-world evidence (RWE) can increase generalizability and is important for decision making, but use of nonrandomized designs makes their evaluation challenging. Several tools are available to assist. In this study, we comparatively characterize 5 tools used to evaluate RWE studies in the context of making health care adoption decision making: (1) Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist, (2) IMI GetReal RWE Navigator (Navigator), (3) Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP) RWE Decoder, (4) CER Collaborative tool, and (5) Real World Evidence Assessments and Needs Guidance (REAdi) tool. We describe each and then compare their features along 8 domains: (1) objective/user/context, (2) development/scope, (3) platform/presentation, (4) user design, (5) study-level internal/external validity of evidence, (6) summarizing body of evidence, (7) assisting in decision making, and (8) sharing results/making improvements. Our summary suggests that the GRACE Checklist aids stakeholders in evaluation of the quality and applicability of individual CER studies. Navigator is a collection of educational resources to guide demonstration of effectiveness, a guidance tool to support development of medicines, and a directory of authoritative resources for RWE. The CMTP RWE Decoder aids in the assessment of relevance and rigor of RWE. The CER Collaborative tool aids in the assessment of credibility and relevance. The REAdi tool aids in refinement of the research question, study retrieval, quality assessment, grading the body of evidence, and prompts with questions to facilitate coverage decisions. All tools specify a framework, were designed with stakeholder input, assess internal validity, are available online, and are easy to use. They vary in their complexity and comprehensiveness. The RWE Decoder, CER Collaborative tool, and REAdi tool synthesize evidence and were specifically designed to aid formulary decision making. This study adds clarity on what the tools provide so that the user can determine which best fits a given purpose. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10391288/ /pubmed/33377442 http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.1.095 Text en Copyright © 2021, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Best Practices Chen, Shuxian Graff, Jennifer Yun, Sophia Beal, Brennan Ta, Jamie T Bansal, Aasthaa Carlson, Joshua J Veenstra, David L Basu, Anirban Devine, Beth Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
title | Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
title_full | Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
title_fullStr | Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
title_full_unstemmed | Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
title_short | Online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
title_sort | online tools to synthesize real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness research to enhance formulary decision making |
topic | Best Practices |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10391288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33377442 http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.1.095 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenshuxian onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT graffjennifer onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT yunsophia onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT bealbrennan onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT tajamiet onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT bansalaasthaa onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT carlsonjoshuaj onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT veenstradavidl onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT basuanirban onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking AT devinebeth onlinetoolstosynthesizerealworldevidenceofcomparativeeffectivenessresearchtoenhanceformularydecisionmaking |