Curie Brief
Turn on cookies to sign in
Signing in saves your progress to your Curie account. We can only do that with cookies on — turn them on to continue.
News
Electronic health record (EHR)-derived studies in dermatology aligned with established clinical evidence about 4 out of 5 times, a new study finds. Researchers say this gives real-world database research a legitimate seat at the table — though it's not a replacement for randomized trials. Think of it as a useful complement, not a substitute.
As dermatology increasingly leans on large clinical databases, a new study asks a surprisingly basic — but important — question: Do EHR-derived studies actually reach the right conclusions? The short answer: mostly yes.
Published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the study analyzed 34 EHR-derived studies covering 144 clinical outcomes matched against established comparator research. About 80% of the time, EHR-based conclusions lined up with what stronger evidence already showed — and notably, no discordant pairs had one source suggesting benefit while the other suggested harm.
Researchers position EHR data as a valuable tool for studying rare adverse events, long-term outcomes, and questions that are difficult to answer through prospective trials — not as a gold standard, but as a meaningful complement to existing evidence.
By the Numbers:
Why it matters: As real-world data becomes more prevalent in clinical research, clinicians need to know how much to trust it. This study offers reassurance — with caveats — that carefully conducted EHR research can meaningfully inform evidence-based dermatology practice.
