Real-world data and evidence in pain research: a qualitative systematic review of methods in current practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of routinely collected health data (real-world data, RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) for research purposes is a growing field. Computerized search methods, large electronic databases, and the development of novel statistical methods allow for valid analysis of data outside its primary clinical purpose. Here, we systematically reviewed the methodology used for RWE studies in pain research. We searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for studies using retrospective data sources comparing multiple groups or treatments. The protocol was registered under the DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/KGVRM. A total of 65 studies were included. Of those, only 4 compared pharmacological interventions, whereas 49 investigated differences in surgical procedures, with the remaining studying alternative or psychological interventions or epidemiological factors. Most 39 studies reported significant results in their primary comparison, and an additional 12 reported comparable effectiveness. Fifty-eight studies used propensity scores to account for group differences, 38 of them using 1:1 case:control matching. Only 17 of 65 studies provided sensitivity analyses to show robustness of their findings, and only 4 studies provided links to publicly accessible protocols. RWE is a relevant construct that can provide evidence complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially in scenarios where RCTs are difficult to conduct. The high proportion of studies reporting significant differences between groups or comparable effectiveness could imply a relevant degree of publication bias. RWD provides a potentially important resource to expand high-quality evidence beyond clinical trials, but rigorous quality standards need to be set to maximize the validity of RWE studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.259 | 0.393 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".