Methodological Challenges using Routine Clinical Care Data for Real-World Evidence: a Rapid Review utilizing a systematic literature search and focus group discussion
Michelle Pfaffenlehner,Max Behrens,Daniela Zoeller,Kathrin Ungethuem,Kai Guenther,Viktoria Ruecker,Jens-Peter Reese,Peter Heuschmann,Miriam Kesselmeier,Flavia Remo,Andre Scherag,Harald Binder,Nadine Binder
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.05.24313049
2024-09-16
Abstract:Background
The integration of real-world evidence (RWE) from real-world data (RWD) in clinical research is crucial for bridging the gap between clinical trial results and real-world outcomes. Analyzing routinely collected data to generate clinical evidence faces methodological concerns like confounding and bias, similar to prospectively documented observational studies. This study focuses on additional limitations frequently reported in the literature, providing an overview of the challenges and biases inherent to analyzing routine clinical care data, including health claims data (hereafter: routine data).
Methods
We conducted a literature search on routine data studies in four high-impact journals based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category "Medicine, General & Internal" as of 2022 and three oncology journals, covering articles published from January 2018 to October 2023. Articles were screened and categorized into three scenarios based on their potential to provide meaningful RWE: (1) Burden of Disease, (2) Safety and Risk Group Analysis, and (3) Treatment Comparison. Limitations of this type of data cited in the discussion sections were extracted and classified according to different bias types: main bias categories in non-randomized studies (information bias, reporting bias, selection bias, confounding) and additional routine data-specific challenges (i.e., operationalization, coding, follow-up, missing data, validation, and data quality). These classifications were then ranked by relevance in a focus group meeting of methodological experts. The search was pre-specified and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023477616).
Results
In October 2023, 227 articles were identified, 69 were assessed for eligibility, and 39 were included in the review: 11 on the burden of disease, 17 on safety and risk group analysis, and 11 on treatment comparison. Besides typical biases in observational studies, we identified additional challenges specific to RWE frequently mentioned in the discussion sections. The focus group had varied opinions on the limitations of Safety and Risk Group Analysis and Treatment Comparison but agreed on the essential limitations for the Burden of Disease category.
Conclusion
This review provides a comprehensive overview of potential limitations and biases in analyzing routine data reported in recent high-impact journals. We highlighted key challenges that significantly impact analysis results, emphasizing the need for thorough consideration and discussion for meaningful inferences.