Fallacy #6: RWE fills the gaps in clinical evidence. Really?

♜ Fallacy #6 ♜

Real-World Evidence fills the gaps in clinical evidence. Really?

🌍 Real-World Evidence, RWE, often sounds like a solution to many evidence challenges. In theory, it can address a large number of different PICOs, which makes it appear particularly valuable for Joint Clinical Assessments.

Do you think that‘s correct❓

💡 The reality is more nuanced. In the evidence hierarchy, it falls well behind randomized evidence and established comparative methods such as Network Meta-Analyses or Bucher indirect comparisons, and is typically defined post hoc. Robust comparisons require sophisticated matching across all relevant confounders.

While RWE can provide supportive insights, it rarely replaces robust comparative evidence. In practice, it is therefore often considered a complementary or last resort option rather than a universal solution. This may also explain why methodological guidelines remain cautious regarding its role.