The “Efficacy-Effectiveness Gap”: Historical Background and Current Conceptualization
Open accessAbstract
Background The concept of the "efficacy-effectiveness gap" (EEG) has started to challenge confidence in decisions made for drugs when based on randomized controlled trials alone. Launched by the Innovative Medicines Initiative, the GetReal project aims to improve understanding of how to reconcile evidence to support efficacy and effectiveness and at proposing operational solutions. Objectives The objectives of the present narrative review were 1) to understand the historical background in which the concept of the EEG has emerged and 2) to describe the conceptualization of EEG. Methods A focused literature review was conducted across the gray literature and articles published in English reporting insights on the EEG concept. The identification of different "paradigms" was performed by simple inductive analysis of the documents' content. Results The literature on the EEG falls into three major paradigms, in which EEG is related to 1) real-life characteristics of the health care system; 2) the method used to measure the drug's effect; and 3) a complex interaction between the drug's biological effect and contextual factors. Conclusions The third paradigm provides an opportunity to look beyond any dichotomy between "standardized" versus "real-life" characteristics of the health care system and study designs. Namely, future research will determine whether the identification of these contextual factors can help to best design randomized controlled trials that provide better estimate…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Efficacy of medications observed in clinical trials often exceeds real-world effectiveness, due in part to lower adherence and discontinuation of therapy and lack of representativeness among clinical trial participants.
“Efficacy of medications observed in clinical trials, however, often exceeds the real-world effectiveness, due in part to patients’ lower adherence and discontinuation of therapy, as well as the lack of representativeness among clinical trial participants.”
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 60 · Cited by 177
- Authors
- Nordon, C., Karcher, H., Groenwold, R. H. H., Ankarfeldt, M. Z., Pichler, F., Chevrou-Severac, H., Rossignol, M., Abbe, A., & Abenhaim, L.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- Novo Nordisk (Denmark) (DK)
- Eli Lilly (Australia) (AU)
- McGill University (CA)
- Venue
- Value in Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-81
- ISSN
- 1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2179942617
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 23.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Value in Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Keywords
- efficacy-effectiveness gap, drug effectiveness, randomized controlled trials, real-world evidence, Innovative Medicines Initiative, contextual factors, trial design, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Drug Therapy, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, Treatment Outcome
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