Skip to main content

The medicines business | A question to investigate

Give the unanswered question a useful shape

A medical-affairs team may hear the same difficult question in different forms: does the evidence apply to this setting, what is missing, and which further work would change a decision? A growing slide library does not necessarily answer it. NEUVIOR is interested in helping teams distinguish a communication gap from a genuine evidence gap, then frame the next research or review question with enough precision to be useful.

Film credits

In the conversation.

NEUVIOR and our founder’s perspectives have appeared across science, business and technology publications.

University of Warwick IATL | AI Ethics NowpharmaphorumTechRadar ProET PharmaFinancial TimesPharmaceutical TechnologyPharmaTimesManufacturing ChemistDigital HealthDaily BusinessTheBusinessDesk.comStartups MagazineInsider MediaYorkshire PostYork PressBusinessCloud

Reporting, commentary, letters and podcast appearances | Read each feature for its format and source.

Not every unanswered question needs a new study

Sometimes the relevant evidence exists but is hard to locate or poorly matched to the question. Sometimes the available population, comparator or outcome genuinely differs from the decision at hand. These situations require different responses. A proposed evidence-gap review would identify the decision-maker, the uncertainty and the consequence of leaving it unresolved. It would avoid treating stakeholder interest alone as evidence of clinical need, product benefit or a commercially valuable research programme.

Evidence quality starts with the question

NICE’s real-world evidence framework emphasises provenance, transparency and methods that address bias (NICE, 2022). EMA’s data-quality framework supports assessment of data used in medicines regulation (EMA, n.d.). Neither guarantees acceptance of a particular study. They provide relevant context for asking whether the proposed evidence can answer the intended question. Our interest is in the preparation of that judgement, not in promising a favourable regulatory or health-technology-assessment outcome.

Separate the audiences and their incentives

A clinician may need applicability to a particular population; a payer may need a resource implication; an investigator may need a scientifically credible design. Medical and commercial functions also have different responsibilities. A useful brief preserves these distinctions instead of turning every question into the same product narrative. It should state which audience raised the uncertainty, what evidence would address it and where communication boundaries require specialist review before material is used externally.

An evidence decision rather than another library

The proposed deliverable would classify the question as answerable from current evidence, suitable for a defined further review or dependent on new research. It would explain the rationale and the strongest contrary interpretation. That gives an evidence-generation committee a practical basis for prioritisation while retaining a clear distinction between scientific uncertainty and a communication need.

A public decision brief | An illustrative example

Open the question.
Inspect the reasoning.

Choose a business question, then look beneath its claim. See what a public source supports, what depends on the local setting and what a useful next step could be.

A medicines or implementation team considering an AI-supported evidence review.

Would a quicker review make the decision better?

The interesting question is the complete piece of work: finding relevant material, checking it, correcting the draft and reaching an accountable decision.

A proposition to investigate

Less preparation. The same ability to challenge.

An evidence-review approach could be useful if it reduces avoidable preparation while preserving source access, relevant qualifications and professional checking. That is the proposed value to test. No time reduction, accuracy improvement or customer result is asserted in this example.

The proposition is constructed for this public brief. It is not a published finding about PHARMORIS.

What the next brief would contain

A decision someone
can commission.

The decision
Whether one defined review task merits an agreed evaluation.
The comparator
The team's existing complete review process, including checking and corrections.
The evidence
Representative cases, source records, reviewer decisions, complete-task effort and exceptions.
Stop or redesign
Stop or redesign if source checking weakens, errors are unacceptable or the complete task offers insufficient value.

Constructed public example | Not PHARMORIS-generated software output or a measured customer result.

Keep this example brief

A bounded proposed PHARMORIS review

We could explore one therapeutic question using approved publications, permitted aggregate stakeholder themes and an agreed evidence search plan. The comparator would be the current medical evidence brief. Reviewers would assess whether the proposed structure identifies relevant evidence, preserves contrary findings and describes the remaining uncertainty accurately. No patient-level data or identifiable clinician interaction would be required for an initial scoping exercise unless a separately justified and authorised purpose emerged.

Judge usefulness rather than volume

Candidate outcomes include material evidence omissions, unsupported inferences, reviewer correction time and agreement on the next information needed. Counting references or generating more pages would be weak measures. A useful output might recommend no new study because the decision is already adequately informed. It might instead distinguish a short literature clarification from a substantial research question that needs a different budget, team, consent process or methodological design.

A research direction must survive challenge

The proposed review should stop if promotional objectives predetermine the scientific conclusion, if the evidence search excludes inconvenient findings, or if confidential stakeholder information lacks a suitable use basis. It should pause if the decision cannot be articulated precisely enough to determine relevant evidence. These boundaries protect the value of the work: an evidence gap that disappears when examined carefully is more useful than an impressive programme built around an ambiguous question.

Bring the question that keeps returning

A medical-affairs or evidence-generation leader can bring one recurring uncertainty and the brief currently used to answer it. We can discuss who needs the answer, why existing evidence is insufficient and what a fair review would compare. The opportunity is a clearer route from a stakeholder question to an accountable evidence decision, with a defined output and an honest possibility that the best next step is clarification, further research or no additional work.

Sources and scope

NICE | Real-world evidence framework | EMA | Data quality framework for medicines regulation

Discuss an evidence-gap question

NICE (2022) Real-world evidence framework. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/corporate/ecd9 (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

EMA (n.d.) Data quality framework for medicines regulation. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/how-we-work/data-regulation-big-data-other-sources/data-quality-framework-medicines-regulation (Accessed: 14 October 2026).

Another useful angle.

NEWSPerspectives & features
Open newsroom