ReviewAdvances in therapy2017
Methodological Aspects in Studies Based on Clinical Routine Data.
Review in Advances in therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Concordance between clinical outcomes in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial and in the electronic health record.Contemporary clinical trials · 2023Trial
- Is digitalization still an uncharted territory for palliative care? Use of electronic patient records and assessment instruments in German specialist palliative care: results of an online survey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Potential Use of Brazilian Green Propolis Extracts as New Photosensitizers for Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy against Cariogenic Microorganisms.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Tapentadol: an overview of the safety profile.Journal of pain research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized controlled clinical trials are regarded as the gold standard for comparing different clinical interventions, but generally their conduct is operationally cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive. Studies and investigations based on clinical routine data on the contrary utilize existing data acquired under real-life conditions and are increasingly popular among practitioners. In this paper, methodological aspects of studies based on clinical routine data are discussed. Important limitations and considerations as well as unique strengths of these types of studies are indicated and exemplarily demonstrated in a recent real-case study based on clinical routine data. In addition two simulation studies reveal the impact of bias in studies based on clinical routine data on the type I error rate and false decision rate in favor of the inferior intervention. It is concluded that correctly analyzing clinical routine data yields a valuable addition to clinical research; however, as a result of a lack of statistical foundation, internal validity, and comparability, generalizing results and inferring properties derived from clinical routine data to all patients of interest has to be considered with extreme caution.
fundingGrünenthal GmbH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.