ReviewCardio-oncology (London, England)2022
Cardiovascular adverse events in oncology trials: understanding and appreciating the differences between clinical trial data and real-world reports.
Review in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Publicly Available Clinical Trial Safety Data: Review and a Call for Standardization and Improved Reporting Practices.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- MiRNA Regulations in Cardiotoxicity Induced by Oncologic Therapies and Possible Immune Response.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Clinical Trial and Real-World Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC in the Post-Platinum-Based Chemotherapy Failure Setting.JTO clinical and research reports · 2023Article
- Targeted Toxicities: Protocols for Monitoring the Adverse Events of Targeted Therapies Used in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Potential and Pitfalls of Pharmacovigilance Databases in Oncology.JACC. CardioOncology · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular health: an important component of cancer survivorship.BMJ oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reports of cardiac adverse events from oncology clinical trials often are at variance with reports derived from clinical observations or data-base reviews. These differences may lead to confusion, as different levels of risks abound in the literature, and the true cardiac risk of using some agents is uncertain. Additionally, such discrepancies may lead to the creation of over-cautious surveillance algorithms. Reasons for these reported differences are complex and often reflect subtleties in the criteria for individual patient evaluation. Both clinical trial data and real-world data have potential flaws that make reconciliation problematic. Importantly, however, both provide crucial information regarding the risk of adverse events. Major factors contribute to these differences including different tools used to diagnose events, and how those tools are interpreted. Additionally, differences in the populations of clinical trial participants and real-world populations play a crucial role. This paper looks at these differences and provides a perspective intended to help clinicians interpret reported variations in event rates derived from highly scrutinized clinical trials and broader real-world data.
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.