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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Shuxian, Graff, Jennifer, Yun, Sophia, Beal, Brennan, Ta, Jamie T, Bansal, Aasthaa, Carlson, Joshua J, Veenstra, David L, Basu, Anirban, Devine, Beth
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