Panel · Use case · Market Access
Evidence-Standard Definition.
LiveConsensus DelphiWhat should count as sufficient real-world evidence for a payer submission in our category?
Evidence-Standard Definition is a ready-made use case for Market Access. It ships under the Consensus Delphi template.
For market access leads. You get each seat's stance on every statement, where consensus holds, the residual disagreement and the consensus statement with its limits. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
What should count as sufficient real-world evidence for a payer submission in our category?
Who rates
Agencies and assessment bodies have published what they expect of real-world evidence. The candidate statements are drawn from these.
| Seat | What it rates from | Why it is at the table |
|---|---|---|
| Global Real-World Evidence Lead | Whether each criterion is achievable with the data that exist.1 | The EMA reflection paper. |
| Global Market Access Director | Whether each criterion would satisfy a payer. | Payer practice. |
| Global Value & Evidence Lead | Whether each criterion would raise the certainty of the evidence. | Evidence grading. |
| HEOR Evidence Lead | Whether each criterion fits assessment frameworks.2 | The NICE real-world evidence framework. |
What the run does
Standards already exist. The NICE framework and EMA’s reflection paper set out what makes data fit for purpose. The statements start from them, and the run tests which of them seats would adopt for the category.1,2
Residual disagreement is the value. If seats split on whether registry data are enough, that split is reported as a crux and not resolved.
What a real Delphi would add. Payer medical directors and assessors, who are the people whose acceptance the standard needs.
Recommended length
Standard
Four disciplines each rate every statement. Standard depth gives one round with seat counts and the residual disagreement in about four pages.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the run makes
The run states the assumptions behind its statements and its rule, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this set:
- The published frameworks reflect how payers in the category act.
- The category has enough real-world data to meet any standard agreed.
- AI seats can speak for payers.
Standards, guidance and sources
Frame
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any statement drawn from a single framework, any consensus that no seat from a payer perspective supported, and any unstable statement.
What arrives
- The statements and the consensus rule
- Verdict and status
- Independent first pass, by seat
- Agreement by statement
- Movement after feedback
- Residual disagreement and cruxes
- What a real Delphi would add
- The consensus statement and its limits
What it will not do
The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a Delphi with real experts. The consensus rule is fixed before any result, and agreement is not correctness.
It does not set an evidence standard for any payer.
It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a Delphi with real experts. A small panel of three to five seats is below every panel size found in the literature, and the report says so.
It does not treat agreement as truth. Consensus is not correctness.
It does not change the rule after seeing the result.
References
- [1] European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on use of real-world data in non-interventional studies to generate real-world evidence. Final, EMA/99865/2025. Status as given in EMA’s listing; not read in full.
- [2] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE real-world evidence framework (ECD9). 2022. Known from NICE’s listing; not read in full.
- [3] ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). PLOS Medicine, 2024. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326. Read in the template research.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Panel service
Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.
To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.