University of Maryland School of
National Pharmaceutical Council.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018 Jan;34(1):111-119. doi: 10.1017/S0266462317004408. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE.
Journal editors' views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion.
In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE.
Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA.
同行评审出版物是将研究结果转化为临床实践指南、卫生技术评估（HTA）和支付政策以及临床护理的关键步骤。本研究的目的是考察期刊编辑对以下方面的当前看法：（i）真实世界证据（RWE）的价值，以及它与其他类型研究的比较；（ii）教育和/或资源期刊编辑为其同行评审员提供的资源，或认为作者、评审员和编辑在 RWE 方面需要的资源。
通过电话访谈、调查和现场圆桌讨论，获取期刊编辑对 RWE 价值和 RWE 手稿编辑程序的看法。
总共联系了 79 种期刊，共进行了 15 次电话访谈、17 次调查回复和 8 次圆桌讨论参与者。所有接受采访的编辑（n=15）都认为 RWE 具有价值。高质量 RWE 手稿的特征包括：新颖性/相关性、严谨的方法和数据与研究问题的一致性。编辑在寻找同行评审员时遇到挑战；然而，这些挑战在所有研究设计中都存在。期刊通常不为评审员提供指导、帮助或培训，包括 RWE 研究。与专科或普通医学编辑相比，卫生政策/卫生服务研究（HSR）编辑更有可能参与这项研究，这可能表明 HSR 研究人员对 RWE 更感兴趣。
编辑报告对 RWE 研究持有利看法，只要研究能够检验重要问题且方法严谨。改进所有研究设计的同行评审流程有可能改善决策的证据基础，包括 HTA。
