Can Weight of Evidence, Quantitative Bias, and Bounding Methods Evaluate Robustness of Real-world Evidence for Regulator and Health Technology Assessment Decisions on Medical Interventions?

Abstract

Purpose: High-quality evidence is crucial for health care intervention decision-making. These decisions frequently use nonrandomized data, which can be more vulnerable to biases than randomized trials. Accordingly, methods to quantify biases and weigh available evidence could elucidate the robustness of findings, giving regulators more confidence in making approval and reimbursement decisions.

Methods: We conducted an integrative literature review to identify methods for determining probability of causation, evaluating weight of evidence, and conducting quantitative bias analysis as related to health care interventions. Eligible studies were published from 2012 to 2021, applicable to pharmacoepidemiology, and presented a method that met our objective.

Findings: Twenty-two eligible studies were classified into 4 categories: (1) quantitative bias analysis; (2) weight of evidence methods; (3) Bayesian networks; and (4) miscellaneous. All of the methods have strengths, limitations, and situations in which they are more well suited than others. Some methods seem to lend themselves more to applications of health care evidence on medical interventions than others.

Implications: To provide robust evidence for and improve confidence in regulatory or reimbursement decisions, we recommend applying multiple methods to triangulate associations of medical interventions, accounting for biases in different ways. This approach could lead to well-defined robustness assessments of study findings and appropriate science-driven decisions by regulators and payers for public health.

Keywords: Biomedical; Causality; Epidemiologic biases; Technology assessment.