Cited by 316Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

When and how can real world data analyses substitute for randomized controlled trials?

Franklin, Jessica M., Schneeweiss, Sebastian·2017·Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Regulators consider randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medications, but their costs, duration, and limited generalizability have caused some to look for alternatives. Real world evidence based on data collected outside of RCTs, such as registries and longitudinal healthcare databases, can sometimes substitute for RCTs, but concerns about validity have limited their impact. Greater reliance on such real world data (RWD) in regulatory decision making requires understanding why some studies fail while others succeed in producing results similar to RCTs. Key questions when considering whether RWD analyses can substitute for RCTs for regulatory decision making are WHEN one can study drug effects without randomization and HOW to implement a valid RWD analysis if one has decided to pursue that option. The WHEN is primarily driven by externalities not controlled by investigators, whereas the HOW is focused on avoiding known mistakes in RWD analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpt.857

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Real-world data complement RCT data by reflecting actual use of hysterectomy and UP surgery in practice, capturing how patient and clinical factors influence surgical decisions and outcomes, and controlling for these factors with biostatistical methods.

    “Real-world data complement RCT data by reflecting actual use of hysterectomy and UP surgery in practice, capturing how patient and clinical factors influence surgical decisions and outcomes, and controlling for these factors with biostatistical methods.33,34”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franklin, J. M., & Schneeweiss, S.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Franklin, Jessica M.
Venue
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09-25
Volume
102
Issue
6
Pages
924-933
ISSN
  • 0009-9236 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6535
OpenAlex
W2745708468
Cited by
316
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 3
FWCI
16.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
real-world data, real-world evidence, randomized controlled trials, regulatory decision-making, generalizability, confounding, observational study design, registry, health databases
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Decision Making, Humans, Registries, Statistics as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Drug Approval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review