RESUMO
Objective: Differences between randomized controlled trial (RCT) results and real world study (RWS) results may not represent a true efficacy-effectiveness gap because efficacy-effectiveness gap estimates may be biased when RWS and RCT differ significantly in study design or when there is bias in RWS result estimation. Secondly, when there is an efficacy- effectiveness gap, it should not treat every patient the same way but assess the real-world factors influencing the intervention's effectiveness and identify the subgroup likely to achieve the desired effect. Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP) were searched up to 31st December 2022 with detailed search strategies. A scoping review method was used to integrate and qualitatively describe the included literature inductively. Results: Ten articles were included to discuss how to use the RCT research protocol as a template to develop the corresponding RWS research protocol. Moreover, based on correctly estimating the efficacy-effectiveness gap, evaluate the intervention effect in the patient subgroup to confirm the subgroup that can achieve the expected benefit-risk ratio to bridge the efficacy-effectiveness gap. Conclusion: Using real-world data to simulate key features of randomized controlled clinical trial study design can improve the authenticity and effectiveness of study results and bridge the efficacy-effectiveness gap.
