Cited by 177Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

The “Efficacy-Effectiveness Gap”: Historical Background and Current Conceptualization

Open access
Nordon, Clementine, Karcher, Helene, Groenwold, Rolf H.H., Ankarfeldt, Mikkel Zöllner, Pichler, Franz, Chevrou-Severac, Helene, Rossignol, Michel, Abbe, Adeline +1 more·2016·Value in Health

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2938

Cites

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?

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
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