Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 33(8): e5871, 2024 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39145406

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Metadata for data dIscoverability aNd study rEplicability in obseRVAtional studies (MINERVA), a European Medicines Agency-funded project (EUPAS39322), defined a set of metadata to describe real-world data sources (RWDSs) and piloted metadata collection in a prototype catalogue to assist investigators from data source discoverability through study conduct. METHODS: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe. RESULTS: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe.


Asunto(s)
Metadatos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Proyectos Piloto , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto/métodos , Recolección de Datos/métodos , Recolección de Datos/normas , Bases de Datos Factuales/estadística & datos numéricos , Programas Informáticos , Farmacoepidemiología/métodos
2.
Value Health ; 25(10): 1726-1735, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35370077

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Access to medicines in Europe depends on a benefit-risk decision taken by regulators and a relative effectiveness assessment performed by health technology assessment bodies (HTABs) to inform, as one element, a reimbursement decision. Although various similarities in evidence needs exist, understanding of their needs is currently suboptimal and therefore the evidence generated does not always meet their needs. Subsequently, delays in decision making can be expected, negatively affecting access. To overcome this, this study reviewed the evidentiary needs of European regulators and HTABs at European level and analyzed how their collaboration can further facilitate optimal evidence generation plans, evidence use, and evidence presentation. METHODS: Through systematic literature review, expert interviews, and pairwise comparison of assessment reports by the European Medicines Agency and European network for health technology assessment, respective clinical evidence requirements and impact of product-specific collaboration between European Medicines Agency and HTABs were established. RESULTS: Clinical evidence needs are quite similar but differences exist in comparator choice, preferred efficacy endpoints, and target population. Results of the impact of collaboration to date were mixed: preapproval joint advice procedures were successful and highly valued by all stakeholders; information exchange at the time of regulatory decision is coming together, yet the European Public Assessment Report can be further optimized; and collaboration on postlicensing evidence generation requirements shows potential but needs solidifying. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the potential to further improve the evidence utilization across stakeholders to avoid duplication and streamline decision making, to ultimately improve access to medicines for European patients.


Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Europa (Continente) , Humanos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA