Related Experiment Videos
PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE
Elisabeth M Oehrlein1, Jennifer S Graff2, Eleanor M Perfetto3
1University of Maryland School of Pharmacyeoehrlein@umaryland.edu.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
|February 9, 2018
Summary
Journal editors value real-world evidence (RWE) when studies are rigorous and relevant. However, journals offer limited peer reviewer training, impacting the evidence base for health technology assessment (HTA).
Area of Science:
- Medical Informatics
- Health Services Research
- Scientific Publishing
Background:
- Peer review is crucial for translating research into clinical practice, health technology assessment (HTA), and policy.
- Real-world evidence (RWE) plays a significant role in this translation process.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess journal editors' perspectives on the value of RWE compared to other study types.
- To understand current editorial practices and perceived needs for educating authors, reviewers, and editors on RWE.
Main Methods:
- Data were collected through telephone interviews, surveys, and roundtable discussions with journal editors.
- Seventy-nine journals were approached, with participation from editors across various specialties.
Main Results:
- All interviewed editors (n=15) found RWE valuable, emphasizing novelty, rigorous methodology, and data alignment with research questions.
- Journals face challenges in finding peer reviewers for all study types and generally do not provide specific training for RWE studies.
- Health Services Research (HSR) editors were more represented, suggesting greater engagement with RWE in this field.
Conclusions:
- Journal editors hold positive views on RWE studies that address important questions with sound methodology.
- Enhancing peer-review processes for all study designs can strengthen the evidence base for decision-making, including HTA.