Search

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) are accepted as the gold-standard approaches to measure effects of intervention or treatment on outcomes. They are also the designs of choice for health technology assessment (HTA). Randomization ensures comparability, in both measured and unmeasured pretreatment characteristics, of individuals assigned to treatment and control or comparator. However, even adequately powered RCTs are not always feasible for several reasons such as cost, time, practical and ethical constraints, and limited generalizability. RCTs rely on data collected on selected, homogeneous population under highly controlled conditions; hence, they provide evidence on efficacy of interventions rather than on effectiveness. Alternatively, observational studies can provide evidence on the relative effectiveness or safety of a health technology compared to one or more alternatives when provided under the setting of routine health care practice. In observational studies, however, treatment assignment is a non-random process based on an individual’s baseline characteristics; hence, treatment groups may not be comparable in their pretreatment characteristics. As a result, direct comparison of outcomes between treatment groups might lead to biased estimate of the treatment effect. Propensity score approaches have been used to achieve balance or comparability of treatment groups in terms of their measured pretreatment covariates thereby controlling for confounding bias in estimating treatment effects. Despite the popularity of propensity scores methods and recent important methodological advances, misunderstandings on their applications and limitations are all too common. In this article, we present a review of the propensity scores methods, extended applications, recent advances, and their strengths and limitations.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is the systematic evaluation of the properties and impacts of health technologies and interventions. In this article, we presented a discussion of HTA and its evolution in Brazil, as well as a description of secondary data sources available in Brazil with potential applications to generate evidence for HTA and policy decisions. Furthermore, we highlighted record linkage, ongoing record linkage initiatives in Brazil, and the main linkage tools developed and/or used in Brazilian data. Finally, we discussed the challenges and opportunities of using secondary data for research in the Brazilian context. In conclusion, we emphasized the availability of high quality data and an open, modern attitude toward the use of data for research and policy. This is supported by a rigorous but enabling legal framework that will allow the conduct of large-scale observational studies to evaluate clinical, economical, and social impacts of health technologies and social policies.