ArticleF1000Research2018
Time to really share real-world data?
Article in F1000Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Evidence Studies in Oncology Therapeutics: Hope or Hype?Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
- Exploring Breast Cancer Systemic Drug Therapy Patterns in Real-World Data.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Promise of Real-World Evidence for Patient Centricity in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: Call to Action.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2023Article
- Contemporary Databases in Real-world Studies Regarding the Diverse Health Care Systems of India, Thailand, and Taiwan: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Real-world evidence and product development: Opportunities, challenges and risk mitigation.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2021Review
- Clinical outcomes and complications between FLACS and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a PRISMA-compliant Meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Life after COVID-19: R WE going to help?Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2020Article
- Challenges in meta-analyses with observational studies.Evidence-based mental health · 2020Article
- Personalized medicine-concepts, technologies, and applications in inflammatory skin diseases.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data other than that from clinical trials are important for healthcare decision making. However, unlike the vocal calls seen for more open access to trial data, there are limited efforts being made to ensure that agencies that collect real-world data (RWD) share this, despite its importance. There are many RWD sources across the world that could be readily exploited for research once shared. There are policy and privacy questions that need to be tackled, but opening up and sharing RWD offers remarkable potential for improvements in care for individuals and more effective use of limited healthcare resources. Open science should become the standard for RWD as well as clinical trials, especially those that have a high likelihood to influence practice.
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.