Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making

Author:

Sarri GrammatiORCID,Patorno ElisabettaORCID,Yuan Hongbo,Guo Jianfei (Jeff),Bennett DimitriORCID,Wen Xuerong,Zullo Andrew RORCID,Largent Joan,Panaccio Mary,Gokhale Mugdha,Moga Daniela Claudia,Ali M Sanni,Debray Thomas P AORCID

Abstract

Introduction: High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types. Objectives and Methods: To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates. Results: Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, ‘high-bar evidence’ when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, ‘medium,’ and ‘low’ when NRS is the main source of inference). Conclusion: Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

Funder

International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference90 articles.

1. Real-World evidence in the real world: beyond the FDA;Krause;Am J Law Med,2018

2. Duke University Margolis Center for Health Policy . A framework for regulatory use of real-world evidence, 2017. Available: https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/sites/default/files/atoms/files/rwe_white_paper_2017.09.06.pdf

3. European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) . ENCEPP Considerations on the Definition of Non-Interventional Trials under the Current Legislative Framework (“Clinical Trials Directive” 2001/20/Ec), 2011. Available: http://www.encepp.eu/publications/documents/ENCePPinterpretationofnoninterventionalstudies.pdf

4. Bridging the efficacy–effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response

5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health . Use of real-world evidence in single drug technology assessment processes by health technology assessment and regulatory organizations. CADTH, 2018.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3