Mixed methods research (MMR) is the third research paradigm that combines quantitative and qualitative research. MMR can overcome limitations of qualitative and quantitative methods by integrating the advantages of these two. The environment of real world research is complicated. When using real world data to assess the health status of patients, process of treatment, outcomes of prevention and treatment, prognosis and prediction, and support for medical policy development, MMR can be applied to tackle research questions more comprehensively for the quality of research.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of haemocoagulase agkistrodon and tranexamic acid and sodium chloride in the prevention and treatment of perioperative bleeding in a real world setting. MethodsA research database was constructed based on the records of inpatient visits using haemocoagulase agkistrodon and tranexamic acid and sodium chloride according to the SuValue® database from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to the different interventions. After matching with a 1∶1 propensity score, the effectiveness of two groups was compared. ResultsA total of 858 patients were included in each of the two groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P>0.05). Research results showed that patients using haemocoagulase agkistrodon had significantly reduced length of hospital stay, decrease in hematocrit, average estimated surgical bleeding, and decrease in hemoglobin (P<0.01). ConclusionHaemocoagulase agkistrodon has better effectiveness than tranexamic acid and sodium chloride for reducing perioperative blood loss based on current real world evidence.
In January 2020, the State Food and Drug Administration issued the guiding principles of real world evidence supporting drug research & development (R&D) and evaluation (Trial) to guide the development of real world study (RWS) for drug R&D and review decision-making in the future. This guideline has important reference value for developing RWS of health food. Based on the interpretation of the core content of the guiding principles, combined with the common points of RWS and health food interventions, this paper preliminarily discusses the application of RWS to support health food regulatory decision-making so as to provide references for further promoting the application of RWS in the field of health food.
ObjectiveTo analyze the status of real world studies (RWS) through registration information of the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR). MethodsThe website of ChiCTR was searched with the real world as the search term to collect relevant registered items in the real world from inception to May 4, 2022. Descriptive analysis method was used. ResultsA total of 642 registered items were included. The median sample size was 482 cases. RWS were mainly observational studies, and the number of intervention studies was increasing year by year. There were 267 studies (41.59%) at the stage of post-marketing drugs or phase Ⅳ clinical trials. Most of the main measures were endpoints (56.23%), and the most commonly used was overall survival (15.79%). 62.15% of the registered projects met the minimum requirements for registration. ConclusionThe number of RWS registered by ChiCTR shows an increasing trend. At present, the research purpose of RWSs is unclear, and the completeness of registered studies and the overall content compliance of the studies need to be improved.
Structured template and reporting tool for real world evidence (STaRT-RWE) was developed by a team led by professor Shirley V Wang of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, which is to plan and report on the implementation of real world evidence (RWE) studies on the safety and efficacy of treatments. The template, published in the journal BMJ in January 2021, has been endorsed by the International Society of PharmacoEpidemiology and the Transparency Initiative promoted by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research. This article interprets its entries to promote the understanding and application of STaRT-RWE by domestic scholars engaged in real world study, and help to improve the transparency, repeatability, and accuracy of RWE research.
High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard for assessing the efficiency and safety of drugs. However, conducting RCTs is expensive and time consumed, and providing timely evidence by RCTs for regulatory agencies and medical decision-makers can be challenging, particularly for new or emerging serious diseases. Additionally, the strict design of RCTs often results in a weakly external validity, making it difficult to provide the evidence of the clinical efficacy and safety of drugs in a broader population. In contrast, large simple clinical trials (LSTs) can expedite the research process and provide better extrapolation and reliable evidence at a lower cost. This article presents the development, features, and distinctions between LSTs and RCTs, as well as special considerations when conducting LSTs, in accordance with literature and guidance principles from regulatory agencies both from China and other countries. Furthermore, this paper assesses the potential of real-world data to bolster the development of LSTs, offering relevant researchers’ insight and guidance on how to conduct LSTs.
ObjectivesTo analyze the active areas of real world studies on traditional Chinese medicine in China.MethodsCBM, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed and EMbase databases were electronically searched to collect real world studies on traditional Chinese medicine in China from inception to 26th April, 2018. The main research contents (research direction, data sources, and research methods) by Excel were extracted, together with the primary information by BICOMS-2 software and production of the network figures by NetDraw 2.084 software.ResultsEventually, 373 real world studies in traditional Chinese medicine were included, in which the initial one was punished in 2008. The top three ranking of authors involved in real world studies on traditional Chinese were Xie Yanming, Zhuang Yan, Yang Wei, and the top three ranking of institutions were Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, School of Statistics of Renmin University of China, and the PLA Navy General Hospital. The amount of related studies in Beijing accounted for 74.26%. It was found that the active areas involve real world, hospital information system, real world study, drug combination, and propensity score method. In terms of the main studied contents on the use of traditional Chinese medicine in the real world, in which the top three were Fufang Kushen injection, Dengzhanxixin injection, and Shuxuetong injection. Digestive system disease, nervous system disease and cardiovascular disease received the highest attention rate, specifically stroke, coronary heart disease, virus hepatitis and hypertension. 58.18% studies were retrospective studies, 49.60% of the information were from the hospital information system, and 56.30% studies used data mining to carry out statistical analysis.ConclusionsMost real world studies on traditional Chinese medicine are based on HIS, and use data mining to study Chinese medicine preparations. The research attention on Chinese medicine is higher than that of the method of diagnosis and treatment, similarly the Chinese medicine preparations is higher than traditional Chinese medicine. In future, attention should be paid to traditional Chinese medicine, prescription and traditional methods of diagnosis and treatment, such as moxibustion and scraping.
Assessment of Real World Observational Studies (ArRoWS) is a tool developed by the Leicester Real World Evidence (LRWE) Unit of the Diabetes Research Centre of the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom to assess the quality of real world evidence research, and has been reported to have good practicability. ArRoWS can be used to quickly and specifically assess the quality of real world evidence research that uses electronic health record information. The tool contains 16 items, nine of which are common items, and seven of which are related to specific research designs. The current study introduces the development background, development process, assessment items, assessment criteria, and application methods of ArRoWS and other related aspects, to provide references for real world researchers in China.
Compared with traditional clinical trials, the real-world studies set higher requirements on the authenticity (reality), applicability, and timeliness of the evidence obtained. In this paper, we brought up a hypothesis that creating synergies between observational and experimental studies may meet these requirements. And then it was discussed in three aspects including providing evidence, research design and execution. In addition, data analysis facilitated generating efficient and robust evidence which was in support of decision making. Finally, some enlightenment may be offered for Traditional Chinese Medicine evaluation methods based on the synergies of both study types.
Objectives To evaluate the clinical outcomes and identify its associated factors in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in Tianjin city. Methods Data were obtained from Tianjin urban employee basic medical insurance database. Adult patients who were discharged alive after the first ACS-related hospitalization (the index hospitalization) during January, 2012 to December, 2014 and without malignant tumor were included. Clinical outcomes were measured by subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, all-cause death, or their composite endpoint. Cox model was used to explore the factors associated with MACE. Results 22 041 patients were identified, in which 9.5% experienced MACE during follow-up with a mean number of 1.3 MACEs. 3.1% of patients had MI, 5.7% had stroke and 1.4% had all-cause death. Among patients who experienced MACEs, the average time from index discharge to the 1st MACE was 143.2 days. Patients being older, male or had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were more likely to experience MACE. Patients who had prior stroke and prior all-cause hospitalization were also more likely to experience MACE, whereas patients who had prior angina, prior β-blockers utilization and received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during index event were less likely to experience MACE. Conclusion Stroke is the most common type of MACE among ACS patients in Tianjin, China. Almost half of the 1st MACE occur within the 3 months after ACS. Patients who are older, male, have higher CCI or have prior stroke are at higher risk of MACE.