GetReal: from efficacy in clinical trials to relative effectiveness in the real world

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 278-281

  Egger, Matthias ^a   Moons, Karel G M ^b   Fletcher, Christine ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c AMGEN LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG THERAPY; HUMAN; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG THERAPY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PATIENT SAFETY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84978086865     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1207     Document Type: Note

References (11)

1. Debray TPA et al. 2015. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Research Synthesis Methods 6(4): 293–309.
2. DeVita VT 2008. The clinical trials system is broken. Nature Clinical Practice. Oncology 5(12): 683.
3. Efthimiou O et al. 2016. GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Research Synthesis Methodsin press.
4. Eichler H-G et al. 2011. Bridging the efficacy–effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10(7): 495–506.
5. GetReal consortium. 2016. IMI GetReal - real-life data in drug development. Available at: http://www.imi-getreal.eu/ [Accessed February 13, 2016].
6. Loudon K et al. 2013. Making clinical trials more relevant: improving and validating the PRECIS tool for matching trial design decisions to trial purpose. Trials 14: 115.
7. Panayidou K et al. 2016. GetReal in mathematical modelling: a review of studies predicting drug effectiveness in the real world. Research Synthesis Methods in press.
8. Shurlock B. 2013. Sensible guidelines for clinical trials: are current European regulations “a gift to America”? European Heart Journal 34(24): 1767–1768.
9. Tenaerts P et al. 2014. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative: innovation through collaboration. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 13: 797–798.
10. Vickers AJ. 2014. Clinical trials in crisis: four simple methodologic fixes. Clinical Trials (London, England) 11(6): 615–21.
11. Westreich D, Edwards JK. 2015. Invited commentary: every good randomization deserves observation. American Journal of Epidemiology 182(10): 857–60.