Real-world studies: Bridging the gap between trial-assessed efficacy and routine care

25Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Even though randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been accepted as the gold standard for official assessment of novel interventions, there is a substantial gap between the efficacy observed in RCTs and the impact on clinical practice and in terms of patient benefit. While real-world studies (RWS) are emerging to confer valuable complementing evidence in this regard and beyond, the evolving role of RWS is yet to be agreed. This article delineates an updated profile of RWS covering effectiveness verification, rare adverse effects discovery, indication repurposing, to name a few. RWS tends not only to improve the efficiency of clinical investigations for regulatory approval, but also optimizes the whole-life cycle evaluation of biomedical/pharmaceutical products.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chen, D. (2022). Real-world studies: Bridging the gap between trial-assessed efficacy and routine care. Journal of Biomedical Research, 36(3), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.7555/JBR.36.20220040

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free