2020
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1481-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can real-world data really replace randomised clinical trials?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
46
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to achieve their implementation in clinical care, a re-assessment of the standards of evidence sufficient to prove the benefit of precision cancer therapies is needed [ 32 ]. New evidence suggests that appropriately conducted real-world data studies have the potential to support regulatory decisions in the absence of RCT data [ 33 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to achieve their implementation in clinical care, a re-assessment of the standards of evidence sufficient to prove the benefit of precision cancer therapies is needed [ 32 ]. New evidence suggests that appropriately conducted real-world data studies have the potential to support regulatory decisions in the absence of RCT data [ 33 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, due to the country-size scale of this observational study it is easy to mimic the randomization element of an RTC and properly compare treatment groups, given the number of individuals available to properly adjust for all baseline cofounders [40]. Actually, the use of propensity scores provides additional adjustment to control for confounding variables [41]. Here, as shown in Table 3, confounding effects between the compared groups due to the known variables associated to the outcomes considered can be ruled out.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is also the case for other social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit. However, social media data frequently lack demographic indicators and ground truth, possibly resulting in biased or poorly representative samples-particularly when compared to the precisely defined inclusion and exclusion criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (173). In this section we provide a short overview of the literature related to the challenges of deriving valid and reliable indicators of human behavior from social media data and how these challenges can be mitigated.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such subsamples may vary considerably in the degree to which they represent an unbiased sample. Future research using social media data must benefit from the large-scale nature of this real-world data, while specifying more precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, as used in RCTs, to avoid sample biases (173). Getting to that point requires the ability to stratify social media user cohorts using more fine-tuned ML, as well as via greater collaboration with and openness from social media platform providers.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%