2021
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Real-world Evidence Needs Careful Interpretation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Whereas "real-world studies," providing evidence on treatment outcomes in clinical practice are increasingly recognized as necessary complementary information sources for patients not included in clinical trials, 1,2 they are also criticized for their susceptibility to bias. 3 Comparative effectiveness studies using real-world data are the main target of such criticism because in clinical practice treatment decisions are mainly based on perceived predictors of treatment benefit, introducing confounding by indication. 4 In the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), for example, switching to a second conventional synthetic disease-modifying drug (csDMARD) or to a combination of csDMARDs is recommended for patients who have failed initial methotrexate (MTX) and who do not have indicators of a poor prognosis, whereas switching to a biological DMARD (bDMARD) is recommended for patients with poor prognosis.…”
Section: Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Whereas "real-world studies," providing evidence on treatment outcomes in clinical practice are increasingly recognized as necessary complementary information sources for patients not included in clinical trials, 1,2 they are also criticized for their susceptibility to bias. 3 Comparative effectiveness studies using real-world data are the main target of such criticism because in clinical practice treatment decisions are mainly based on perceived predictors of treatment benefit, introducing confounding by indication. 4 In the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), for example, switching to a second conventional synthetic disease-modifying drug (csDMARD) or to a combination of csDMARDs is recommended for patients who have failed initial methotrexate (MTX) and who do not have indicators of a poor prognosis, whereas switching to a biological DMARD (bDMARD) is recommended for patients with poor prognosis.…”
Section: Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the relative efficacy and safety of drugs, but practical constraints preclude well‐powered head‐to‐head RCTs of all therapeutic options in all clinically relevant patient groups. Whereas “real‐world studies,” providing evidence on treatment outcomes in clinical practice are increasingly recognized as necessary complementary information sources for patients not included in clinical trials, 1,2 they are also criticized for their susceptibility to bias 3 . Comparative effectiveness studies using real‐world data are the main target of such criticism because in clinical practice treatment decisions are mainly based on perceived predictors of treatment benefit, introducing confounding by indication 4 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%