James R Rogers1, Junghwan Lee1, Ziheng Zhou2, Ying Kuen Cheung3, George Hripcsak1,4, Chunhua Weng1. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Institute of Human Nutrition, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA, and. 4. Medical Informatics Services, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Real-world data (RWD), defined as routinely collected healthcare data, can be a potential catalyst for addressing challenges faced in clinical trials. We performed a scoping review of database-specific RWD applications within clinical trial contexts, synthesizing prominent uses and themes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Querying 3 biomedical literature databases, research articles using electronic health records, administrative claims databases, or clinical registries either within a clinical trial or in tandem with methodology related to clinical trials were included. Articles were required to use at least 1 US RWD source. All abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Two reviewers independently verified all decisions. RESULTS: Of 2020 screened articles, 89 qualified: 59 articles used electronic health records, 29 used administrative claims, and 26 used registries. Our synthesis was driven by the general life cycle of a clinical trial, culminating into 3 major themes: trial process tasks (51 articles); dissemination strategies (6); and generalizability assessments (34). Despite a diverse set of diseases studied, <10% of trials using RWD for trial process tasks evaluated medications or procedures (5/51). All articles highlighted data-related challenges, such as missing values. DISCUSSION: Database-specific RWD have been occasionally leveraged for various clinical trial tasks. We observed underuse of RWD within conducted medication or procedure trials, though it is subject to the confounder of implicit report of RWD use. CONCLUSION: Enhanced incorporation of RWD should be further explored for medication or procedure trials, including better understanding of how to handle related data quality issues to facilitate RWD use.
OBJECTIVE: Real-world data (RWD), defined as routinely collected healthcare data, can be a potential catalyst for addressing challenges faced in clinical trials. We performed a scoping review of database-specific RWD applications within clinical trial contexts, synthesizing prominent uses and themes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Querying 3 biomedical literature databases, research articles using electronic health records, administrative claims databases, or clinical registries either within a clinical trial or in tandem with methodology related to clinical trials were included. Articles were required to use at least 1 US RWD source. All abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Two reviewers independently verified all decisions. RESULTS: Of 2020 screened articles, 89 qualified: 59 articles used electronic health records, 29 used administrative claims, and 26 used registries. Our synthesis was driven by the general life cycle of a clinical trial, culminating into 3 major themes: trial process tasks (51 articles); dissemination strategies (6); and generalizability assessments (34). Despite a diverse set of diseases studied, <10% of trials using RWD for trial process tasks evaluated medications or procedures (5/51). All articles highlighted data-related challenges, such as missing values. DISCUSSION: Database-specific RWD have been occasionally leveraged for various clinical trial tasks. We observed underuse of RWD within conducted medication or procedure trials, though it is subject to the confounder of implicit report of RWD use. CONCLUSION: Enhanced incorporation of RWD should be further explored for medication or procedure trials, including better understanding of how to handle related data quality issues to facilitate RWD use.
Authors: Sean Khozin; Amy P Abernethy; Nathan C Nussbaum; Jizu Zhi; Melissa D Curtis; Melisa Tucker; Shannon E Lee; David E Light; Anala Gossai; Rachael A Sorg; Aracelis Z Torres; Payal Patel; Gideon Michael Blumenthal; Richard Pazdur Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-01-09
Authors: Nils H Mueller-Kronast; Osama O Zaidat; Michael T Froehler; Reza Jahan; Mohammad Ali Aziz-Sultan; Richard P Klucznik; Jeffrey L Saver; Frank R Hellinger; Dileep R Yavagal; Tom L Yao; David S Liebeskind; Ashutosh P Jadhav; Rishi Gupta; Ameer E Hassan; Coleman O Martin; Hormozd Bozorgchami; Ritesh Kaushal; Raul G Nogueira; Ravi H Gandhi; Eric C Peterson; Shervin R Dashti; Curtis A Given; Brijesh P Mehta; Vivek Deshmukh; Sidney Starkman; Italo Linfante; Scott H McPherson; Peter Kvamme; Thomas J Grobelny; Muhammad S Hussain; Ike Thacker; Nirav Vora; Peng Roc Chen; Stephen J Monteith; Robert D Ecker; Clemens M Schirmer; Eric Sauvageau; Alex Abou-Chebl; Colin P Derdeyn; Lucian Maidan; Aamir Badruddin; Adnan H Siddiqui; Travis M Dumont; Abdulnasser Alhajeri; M Asif Taqi; Khaled Asi; Jeffrey Carpenter; Alan Boulos; Gaurav Jindal; Ajit S Puri; Rohan Chitale; Eric M Deshaies; David H Robinson; David F Kallmes; Blaise W Baxter; Mouhammad A Jumaa; Peter Sunenshine; Aniel Majjhoo; Joey D English; Shuichi Suzuki; Richard D Fessler; Josser E Delgado Almandoz; Jerry C Martin; Diogo C Haussen Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David E Gerber; Heidi A Hamann; Noel O Santini; Suhny Abbara; Hsienchang Chiu; Molly McGuire; Lisa Quirk; Hong Zhu; Simon J Craddock Lee Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Waddah B Al-Refaie; Selwyn M Vickers; Wei Zhong; Helen Parsons; David Rothenberger; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Matthew Phelan; Neha J Pagidipati; Rury R Holman; Michael J Pencina; Elizabeth A Stuart Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Maciej M Mrugala; Herbert H Engelhard; David Dinh Tran; Yvonne Kew; Robert Cavaliere; John L Villano; Daniela Annenelie Bota; Jeremy Rudnick; Ashley Love Sumrall; Jay-Jiguang Zhu; Nicholas Butowski Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Rosanna Fiallo-Scharer; Mari Palta; Betty A Chewning; Tim Wysocki; Tosha B Wetterneck; Elizabeth D Cox Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Rachel Gold; Celine Hollombe; Arwen Bunce; Christine Nelson; James V Davis; Stuart Cowburn; Nancy Perrin; Jennifer DeVoe; Ned Mossman; Bruce Boles; Michael Horberg; James W Dearing; Victoria Jaworski; Deborah Cohen; David Smith Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Michael J Pishvaian; Edik M Blais; R Joseph Bender; Shruti Rao; Simina M Boca; Vincent Chung; Andrew E Hendifar; Sam Mikhail; Davendra P S Sohal; Paula R Pohlmann; Kathleen N Moore; Kai He; Bradley J Monk; Robert L Coleman; Thomas J Herzog; David D Halverson; Patricia DeArbeloa; Emanuel F Petricoin; Subha Madhavan Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2019-10-07
Authors: Cynthia M Senerchia; Tracy L Ohrt; Peter N Payne; Samantha Cheng; David Wimmer; Irene Margolin-Katz; Devin Tian; Lawrence Garber; Stephanie Abbott; Brian Webster Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-05-05
Authors: Muhammad F Walji; Heiko Spallek; Krishna Kumar Kookal; Jane Barrow; Britta Magnuson; Tamanna Tiwari; Udochukwu Oyoyo; Michael Brandt; Brian J Howe; Gary C Anderson; Joel M White; Elsbeth Kalenderian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.497