Sudha R Raman1,2, Emily C O'Brien1,2, Bradley G Hammill1,2, Adam J Nelson2,3, Laura J Fish4, Lesley H Curtis1,2, Keith Marsolo1,2. 1. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 3. Monash Heart, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To empirically explore how pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) that used real-world data (RWD) assessed study-specific fitness-for-use. METHODS: We conducted interviews and surveys with PCT teams who used electronic health record (EHR) data to ascertain endpoints. The survey cataloged key concerns about RWD, activities used to assess data fitness-for-use, and related barriers encountered by study teams. Patterns and commonalities across trials were used to develop recommendations for study-specific fitness-for-use assessments. RESULTS: Of 15 invited trial teams, 7 interviews were conducted. Of 31 invited trials, 15 responded to the survey. Most respondents had prior experience using RWD (93%). Major concerns about EHR data were data reliability, missingness or incompleteness of EHR elements, variation in data quality across study sites, and presence of implausible or incorrect values. Although many PCTs conducted fitness-for-use activities (eg, data quality assessments, 11/14, 79%), less than a quarter did so before choosing a data source. Fitness-for-use activities, findings, and resulting study design changes were not often publically documented. Overall costs and personnel costs were barriers to fitness-for-use assessments. DISCUSSION: These results support three recommendations for PCTs that use EHR data for endpoint ascertainment. Trials should detail the rationale and plan for study-specific fitness-for-use activities, conduct study-specific fitness-for-use assessments early in the prestudy phase to inform study design changes before the trial begins, and share results of fitness-for-use assessments and description of relevant challenges and facilitators. CONCLUSION: These recommendations can help researchers and end-users of real-world evidence improve characterization of RWD reliability and relevance in the PCT-specific context.
OBJECTIVE: To empirically explore how pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) that used real-world data (RWD) assessed study-specific fitness-for-use. METHODS: We conducted interviews and surveys with PCT teams who used electronic health record (EHR) data to ascertain endpoints. The survey cataloged key concerns about RWD, activities used to assess data fitness-for-use, and related barriers encountered by study teams. Patterns and commonalities across trials were used to develop recommendations for study-specific fitness-for-use assessments. RESULTS: Of 15 invited trial teams, 7 interviews were conducted. Of 31 invited trials, 15 responded to the survey. Most respondents had prior experience using RWD (93%). Major concerns about EHR data were data reliability, missingness or incompleteness of EHR elements, variation in data quality across study sites, and presence of implausible or incorrect values. Although many PCTs conducted fitness-for-use activities (eg, data quality assessments, 11/14, 79%), less than a quarter did so before choosing a data source. Fitness-for-use activities, findings, and resulting study design changes were not often publically documented. Overall costs and personnel costs were barriers to fitness-for-use assessments. DISCUSSION: These results support three recommendations for PCTs that use EHR data for endpoint ascertainment. Trials should detail the rationale and plan for study-specific fitness-for-use activities, conduct study-specific fitness-for-use assessments early in the prestudy phase to inform study design changes before the trial begins, and share results of fitness-for-use assessments and description of relevant challenges and facilitators. CONCLUSION: These recommendations can help researchers and end-users of real-world evidence improve characterization of RWD reliability and relevance in the PCT-specific context.
Authors: Kristine E Lynch; Stephen A Deppen; Scott L DuVall; Benjamin Viernes; Aize Cao; Daniel Park; Elizabeth Hanchrow; Kushan Hewa; Peter Greaves; Michael E Matheny Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Lucinda S Orsini; Marc Berger; William Crown; Gregory Daniel; Hans-Georg Eichler; Wim Goettsch; Jennifer Graff; John Guerino; Pall Jonsson; Nirosha Mahendraratnam Lederer; Brigitta Monz; C Daniel Mullins; Sebastian Schneeweiss; David Van Brunt; Shirley V Wang; Richard J Willke Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Emily Pfaff; Adam Lee; Robert Bradford; Jinhee Pae; Clarence Potter; Paul Blue; Patricia Knoepp; Kristie Thompson; Christianne L Roumie; David Crenshaw; Remy Servis; Darren A DeWalt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman; Andreas Laupacis; Peter C Gøtzsche; Karmela Krleža-Jerić; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Howard Mann; Kay Dickersin; Jesse A Berlin; Caroline J Doré; Wendy R Parulekar; William S M Summerskill; Trish Groves; Kenneth F Schulz; Harold C Sox; Frank W Rockhold; Drummond Rennie; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Laura Goettinger Qualls; Thomas A Phillips; Bradley G Hammill; James Topping; Darcy M Louzao; Jeffrey S Brown; Lesley H Curtis; Keith Marsolo Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2018-04-13
Authors: Tiffany J Callahan; Alan E Bauck; David Bertoch; Jeff Brown; Ritu Khare; Patrick B Ryan; Jenny Staab; Meredith N Zozus; Michael G Kahn Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: Julie C Lauffenburger; Thomas Isaac; Lorenzo Trippa; Punam Keller; Ted Robertson; Robert J Glynn; Thomas D Sequist; Dae H Kim; Constance P Fontanet; Edward W B Castonguay; Nancy Haff; Renee A Barlev; Mufaddal Mahesri; Chandrashekar Gopalakrishnan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Dianne Paraoan; Jane Perlmutter; Scott R Evans; Sudha R Raman; John J Sheehan; Zachary P Hallinan Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 1.778
Authors: Andrea L Nevedal; Caitlin M Reardon; Marilla A Opra Widerquist; George L Jackson; Sarah L Cutrona; Brandolyn S White; Laura J Damschroder Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Merrick Zwarenstein; Shaun Treweek; Joel J Gagnier; Douglas G Altman; Sean Tunis; Brian Haynes; Andrew D Oxman; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-11-11