scholarly journals PNS221 Healthcare Decision-Making Using Real-World Evidence: Many Opportunities, Little Guidance. Results from a Systematic Review of Guidance

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S678
Author(s):  
G. Sarri ◽  
K.R. Abrams ◽  
N. Muszbek ◽  
T. Debray
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Real World ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Real World Evidence

PNS118 Real World Evidence (RWE) Use in Latin America Healthcare Decision Making: An Stakeholder Survey Analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S194
Author(s):  
L. Costa ◽  
A.L. Hincapie ◽  
R. Gilardino ◽  
B. Tang ◽  
G. Julian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Real World ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Survey Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Real World Evidence

PP21 Use Of Real-World Evidence For Healthcare Decision Making: Infliximab Versus Etanercept And The Risk Of Tuberculosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 16-16
Author(s):  
Paola Andrea Rivera-Ramirez ◽  
Fabián Alejandro Fiestas-Saldarriaga
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Real World ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Comparative Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionIn the absence of direct evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), real-world evidence (RWE) can play an important role in healthcare decision making. As part of a health technology assessment, we assessed the comparative risk of tuberculosis (TB) associated with using infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search using the PubMed database to identify relevant meta-analyses.ResultsWe located two relevant meta-analyses: one based on RCTs and one based on observational studies. Evidence from seven RCTs on infliximab (2,686 patients; 12 TB events) and two RCTs on etanercept (663 patients; 2 TB events) suggested no significant differences in the risk of TB between the two treatments, compared with placebo. In contrast, evidence from ten observational studies that directly compared the two treatments (443,941 patients; 253 TB events) indicated a significantly higher risk of TB with infliximab than with etanercept.ConclusionsAlthough RWE is prone to confounding and bias, in this case it had the advantage of providing direct comparisons with larger sample sizes and longer follow up than evidence from RCTs. As a result, RWE was used to inform decision making on the risk of TB with infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

scholarly journals Real-World Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making: Global Trends and Case Studies From Latin America

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nahila Justo ◽  
Manuel A. Espinoza ◽  
Barbara Ratto ◽  
Martha Nicholson ◽  
Diego Rosselli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Global Trends ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Real World Evidence

scholarly journals The Nationwide Osmed Health-Db Database. A Tool To Support Healthcare Decision-Making And Real-World Evidence Generation

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A693 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Degli Esposti ◽  
S Saragoni ◽  
D Sangiorgi ◽  
S Buda ◽  
A Cangini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Real World ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Evidence Generation

scholarly journals Which instruments are used to measure shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals? A systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Francesco Fattori ◽  
Deirdre O'Donnell ◽  
Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín ◽  
Thilo Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Family Carers ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Psychometric Instruments

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity. Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments. Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.

scholarly journals Which instruments are used to measure shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals? A systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Francesco Fattori ◽  
Deirdre O'Donnell ◽  
Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín ◽  
Thilo Kroll
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Family Carers ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making ◽  
Psychometric Instruments

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a dialogical relationship where the physician and the patient define the problem, discuss the available options according to the patient’s values and preferences, and co-construct the treatment plan. Undertaking SDM in a clinical setting with patients who have limited, impaired or fluctuating cognitive capacity may prove challenging. Supported (defined “Assisted” in the Irish context) decision-making describes how people with impaired or fluctuating capacity remain in control of their healthcare-related choices through mechanisms which build and maximise capacity. Supported and assisted decision-making (ADM) within healthcare settings is theoretically and practically novel. Therefore, there is a knowledge gap about the validity of psychometric instruments used to assess ADM and its components within clinical settings. This systematic review aims to identify and characterise instruments currently used to assess shared, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients with limited, impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis will be performed using a search strategy involving the following databases (PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO). Quantitative studies published in the last decade and describing psychometric instruments measuring SDM, supported decision-making and ADM with people having limited or fluctuating capacity will be considered eligible for inclusion. Title and abstract screening will be followed by full-text eligibility screening, data extraction, synthesis and analysis. This review will be structured and reported according to the PRISMA checklist. The COSMIN Risk of bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of the instruments. Discussion: The results will inform and be useful to HCPs and policymakers interested in having updated knowledge of the available instruments to assess SDM, supported and assisted healthcare decision-making between patients who have impaired or fluctuating capacity, their family carers and healthcare professionals. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105360; registered on 10/08/2018.

PMU71 Real World Data Availability in Latin America: Assessment and Implications for Research and Healthcare Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S157
Author(s):  
H. Monsanto ◽  
C. Parellada ◽  
J. Orengo ◽  
J.S. Velasco ◽  
Bavel J van ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Real World ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
World Data ◽  
Healthcare Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document