Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32952404›Full record

ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2020

Awareness, Knowledge, and Utility of RCT Data vs RWE: Results From a Survey of US Cardiologists: Real-world Evidence in Clinical Decision Making.

Todd C Villines, Mark J Cziraky, Alpesh N Amin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A cohort description and comparison of four European national diabetes registries for the REDDIE project.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Real-world evidence enhances decision making.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020
    Article
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

3 authors.

Todd C VillinesUniversity of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2674-3702
Mark J CzirakyHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Alpesh N AminDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides a potential rich source of additional information to the body of data available from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but there is a need to understand the strengths and limitations of RWE before it can be applied to clinical practice. To gain insight into current thinking in clinical decision making and utility of different data sources, a representative sampling of US cardiologists selected from the current, active Fellows of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) were surveyed to evaluate their perceptions of findings from RCTs and RWE studies and their application in clinical practice. The survey was conducted online via the ACC web portal between 12 July and 11 August 2017. Of the 548 active ACC Fellows invited as panel members, 173 completed the survey (32% response), most of whom were board certified in general cardiology (n = 119, 69%) or interventional cardiology (n = 40, 23%). The survey results indicated a wide range of familiarity with and utilization of RWE amongst cardiologists. Most cardiologists were familiar with RWE and considered RWE in clinical practice at least some of the time. However, a significant minority of survey respondents had rarely or never applied RWE learnings in their clinical practice, and many did not feel confident in the results of RWE other than registry data. These survey findings suggest that additional education on how to assess and interpret RWE could help physicians to integrate data and learnings from RCTs and RWE to best guide clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Cardiologistsclinical decision makingrandomized clinical trialsreal-world evidencesurvey

Identifiers

PMID32952404
PMCPMC7476349

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.