Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30357570›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2018

Interpretation and Impact of Real-World Clinical Data for the Practicing Clinician.

Lawrence Blonde, Kamlesh Khunti, Stewart B Harris, Casey Meizinger, Neil S Skolnik

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 384 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
384citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

384 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Long-term real-world effectiveness and safety of fremanezumab in 1140 patients with migraine and at least 6 months of treatment: third interim analysis of the pan-European PEARL study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

324 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lawrence BlondeOchsner Diabetes Clinical Research Unit, Department of Endocrinology, Frank Riddick Diabetes Institute, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA, USA. lblonde@ochsner.org.ORCID 0000-0003-0492-6698
Kamlesh KhuntiDiabetes Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Stewart B HarrisSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Western Centre for Public Health and Family Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Casey MeizingerDepartment of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, PA, 19001, USA.
Neil S SkolnikAbington Family Medicine, Jenkintown, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world studies have become increasingly important in providing evidence of treatment effectiveness in clinical practice. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the "gold standard" for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic agents, necessarily strict inclusion and exclusion criteria mean that trial populations are often not representative of the patient populations encountered in clinical practice. Real-world studies may use information from electronic health and claims databases, which provide large datasets from diverse patient populations, and/or may be observational, collecting prospective or retrospective data over a long period of time. They can therefore provide information on the long-term safety, particularly pertaining to rare events, and effectiveness of drugs in large heterogeneous populations, as well as information on utilization patterns and health and economic outcomes. This review focuses on how evidence from real-world studies can be utilized to complement data from RCTs to gain a more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of medications as they are used in practice.Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyDatabases, FactualData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesClinical practiceReal-world dataReal-world study

Identifiers

PMID30357570
PMCPMC6223979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.