Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Publication stageIn Press Accepted Manuscript
Précis: A practical approach of linking questions asked of real-world evidence with specific data sources to provide examples and learnings to support better use of RWE in HTA
Concept and design: Murphy, Akehurst, Solà-Morales, Cunningham, Mestre-Ferrandiz, de Pouvourville
Acquisition of data: Murphy, Franklin
Analysis and interpretation of data: Murphy, Akehurst, Solà-Morales, Cunningham, Mestre-Ferrandiz, Franklin, de Pouvourville
Drafting of the manuscript: Murphy, Akehurst, Solà-Morales, Cunningham, Mestre-Ferrandiz, Franklin, de Pouvourville
Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content: Murphy, Akehurst, Solà-Morales, Cunningham, Mestre-Ferrandiz, Franklin
Obtaining funding: Murphy, Akehurst, Solà-Morales, Cunningham, Mestre-Ferrandiz, de Pouvourville
Conflict of interest statement
Prof Akehurst and Dr Murphy are employees of Lumanity, which received funding from Novartis AG for the work submitted. Lumanity also received funding from Novartis AG outside the submitted work. Drs Solà-Morales and Cunningham received institutional fees from Novartis AG for the work submitted, and also report receiving institutional fees from Novartis AG outside of the work submitted. Dr Mestre-Ferrandiz and Prof de Pouvourville received personal fees from Novartis AG for the work submitted. Dr Franklin received institutional fees from Novartis AG for the work submitted. Prof de Pouvourville has also received personal fees from Novartis AG outside the submitted work. None of the authors declare any patents or copyrights, or any other personal relationships of relevance.
The authors would like to acknowledge the wide range of people and organizations who have contributed to this work. Novartis, of course, have funded the wider EUreccA 2025 initiative, of which this work is a part, but additionally, Novartis staff have been frequent commentators as the work has progressed. In particular, we would like to note the contributions of Sorcha Corry. Furthermore, we would like to note contributions from the ScHARR team (Dr Praveen Thokala, Prof Nick Latimer, Dr Suzy Paisley, Dr James Fotheringham, Martin Orr, Dr Marissa Martyn-St James and Dr Edith Poku) who supported our work on the commentaries; and from the individual experts who make up EUreccA 2025 who have provided many helpful suggestions and criticisms both in writing and in meetings over the past 2 years. We would especially note input from Dr Karen Facey and Prof Mike Drummond. The participants in our advisory board and in our Delphi panels provided great insight. We have tried to reflect the wisdom that has been offered to us. Errors that remain are our own.
Description of the article
Our work, and that of other researchers, has highlighted the barriers to the optimal use of real-world evidence (RWE) in health technology assessment (HTA). When RWE has been used, particularly to address questions of relative effectiveness in HTA, it has commonly been mistrusted. This is in part because problems nearly always arise that are particular to the use of particular data sources, answering particular questions. Each ‘pairing’ of question and source has its own problems. We have argued in other papers in this supplement for the potential value of a resource that allows easy retrieval of past decisions by HTA agencies classified by ‘pairings’. This paper sets out to describe in detail lacking in the other papers such a practical resource, which we would be happy to make available to the HTA community to own and use.