Real-World Study （RWS） is originated in the practical clinical trials， which belongs to the category of drug epidemiology. It is non-random， open， no placebo research， and based on the clinical actual situation and the emphasizing the external validity of the research results. The RWS has received a lot of attention and in some field of medicine， disease-specific observational cohort， registry and management database have been well-established. While the RWS in ophthalmology is just starting up. In this article， the background， concepts， methods of RWS and its application in ophthalmology were reviewed.
梁远波,吴越,郑景伟. “真实世界”研究的产生背景、概念、方法及其在眼科的应用. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2013, 15(12):756-759. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2013.12.014.
LIANG Yuan-bo,WU Yue,ZHENG Jing-wei.. Background， conceptions， methodology of the Real-World Study and its application in ophthalmology. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 2013, 15(12):756-759.
Witt CM. Clinical research on acupuncture-Concepts and guidance on efficacy and effectiveness research. Chin J Integr Med，2011，17：166-172.
[9]
Porzsolt F， Eisemann M， Habs M， et al. Form follows function： pragmatic controlled trials （PCTs） have to answer different questions and require different designs than randomized controlled trials （RCTs）. J Public Health，2013，21：307-313.
[10]
姜林娣. 风湿领域推广真实世界. 中华风湿病学杂志，2011，15：572-573.
[11]
Karanicolas PJ， Montori VM， Devereaux PJ， et al. A new ″mechanistic-practical″ framework for designing and interpreting randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol，2009，62：479-484.
[12]
Jadad AR， Moore RA， Carroll D， et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials： is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials，1996，17：1-12.
[13]
Grapow MT， von Wattenwyl R， Guller U， et al. Randomized controlled trials do not reflect reality： real-world analyses are critical for treatment guidelines!J Thorac Cardiov Sur，2006， 132：5-7.
[14]
Tunis SR， Stryer DB， Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials： increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA，2003，290：1624-1632.
[15]
Freemantle N， Strack T. Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by appropriately designed clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol，2010，63：1053-1058.
[16]
Flather M， Delahunty N， Collinson J. Generalizing results of randomized trials to clinical practice： reliability and cautions. Clin Trials，2006，3：508-512.
[17]
Mossello E， Tonon E， Caleri V， et al. Effectiveness and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in elderly subjects with Alzheimer′s disease： a ″real world″ study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl，2004：297-307.
[18]
Cazzoletti L， Marcon A， Janson C， et al. Asthma control in Europe： a real-world evaluation based on an international population-based study. J Allergy Clin Immun，2007，120：1360-1367.
[19]
Fain JM， Kotak S， Mardekian J， et al. A multicenter， retrospective chart review study comparing index therapy change rates in open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients newly treated with latanoprost or travoprost-Z monotherapy. BMC Ophthalmol，2011，11：13.
[20]
Nixon DR， Simonyi S， Bhogal M， et al. An observational study of bimatoprost 0.01% in treatment-naive patients with primary open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension： the CLEAR trial. Clin Ophthalmol，2012，6：2097-2103.
Magliano L， Fiorillo A， Malangone C， et al. Patient functioning and family burden in a controlled， real-world trial of family psychoeducation for schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv，2006，57：1784-1791.
Solish AM， James F， Walt JG， et al. Paired-eye comparison of medical therapies for glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol，2010，4：1131-1135.
[26]
Freemantle N， Drummond M. Should clinical trials with concurrent economic analyses be blinded? JAMA，1997，277：63-64.
[27]
Wolfe F. A short history of data banking in the United states from1974 to 2003. J Rheumatol Suppl，2004，69：41-45.
[28]
Kremer J. The CORRONA database. Ann Rrheum Dis，2005， 64 Suppl 4：iv37-41.
[29]
Kremers HM. Methods to Analyze Real-World Databases and Registries. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis，2009，67：193-197.
[30]
Zink A， Askling J， Dixon WG， et al. European biologicals registers： methodology， selected results and perspectives. Ann Rrheum Dis，2009，68：1240-1246.
[31]
Berlin JA， Glasser SC， Ellenberg SS. Adverse event detection in drug development： recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3. Am J Public Health，2008，98：1366-1371.
[32]
Knottnerus JA， Tugwell P. Real world research. J Clin Epidemiol，2010，63：1051-1052.
[33]
Bosco JL， Silliman RA， Thwin SS， et al. A most stubborn bias： no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol，2010，63：64-74.
[34]
Holmstrom S， Buchholz P， Walt J， et al. Analytic review of bimatoprost， latanoprost and travoprost in primary open angle glaucoma. Curr Med Res Opin，2005，21：1875-1883.
[35]
Law SK， Song BJ， Fang E， et al. Feasibility and efficacy of a mass switch from latanoprost to bimatoprost in glaucoma patients in a prepaid Health Maintenance Organization. Ophthalmology，2005，112：2123-2130.
[36]
Lanzl I， Hamacher T， Rosbach K， et al. Preservative-free tafluprost in the treatment of naive patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Clin ophthalmol，2013，7：901-910.
[37]
Hommer A， Mohammed Ramez O， Burchert M， et al. IOP-lowering efficacy and tolerability of preservative-free tafluprost 0.0015% among patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. Curr Med Res Opin，2010，26：1905-1913.
[38]
Healey PR， Lee AJ， Aung T， et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph for glaucoma a population-based assessment. Ophthalmology，2010，117：1667-1673.
[39]
Saito H， Tsutsumi T， Araie M， et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II Version 3.0 in a population-based study： the Tajimi Study. Ophthalmology，2009， 116：1854-1861.
[40]
Mowatt G， Burr JM， Cook JA， et al. Screening tests for detecting open-angle glaucoma： systematic review and meta-analysis. Invest Ophth Vis Sci，2008，49：5373-5385.
[41]
Maul EA， Jampel HD. Glaucoma screening in the real world. Ophthalmology，2010，117：1665-1666.
[42]
Li T， Ervin AM， Scherer R， et al. Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research： a case study using primary open-angle glaucoma. Ophthalmology，2010，117：1937-1945.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号