PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Rosanna Tarricone
AU  - Paola Roberta Boscolo
AU  - Patrizio Armeni
TI  - What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?
AID  - 10.1183/16000617.0016-2016
DP  - 2016 Sep 01
TA  - European Respiratory Review
PG  - 259--265
VI  - 25
IP  - 141
4099  - http://err.ersjournals.com/content/25/141/259.short
4100  - http://err.ersjournals.com/content/25/141/259.full
SO  - EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY REVIEW2016 Sep 01; 25
AB  - The objective of this mini-review is to discuss the role of real-world studies as a source of clinical evidence when experimental studies, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are not available. Waiting for RCT evidence when the technology is diffusing could be anti-economical, inefficient from the policy perspective and methodologically questionable.We explain how real-world studies could provide relevant evidence to decision makers. Matching techniques are discussed as a viable solution for bias reduction.We describe a case study concerning a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data of a technology already in use: Mitraclip combined with medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation. The CEA has encountered the scepticism of most reviewers, due not to the statistical methodology but to the fact that the study was observational and not experimental. Editors and reviewers converged in considering real-world economic evaluations premature in the absence of a RCT, even if in the meantime the technology had been implanted >30 000 times. We believe there is a need to acknowledge the importance of real-world studies, and engage the scientific community in the promotion and use of clinical evidence produced through observational studies.Real-world data are a valid complement and/or alternative to RCTs to support policy decisions on medical devices http://ow.ly/SHsZ300pfCB