ReviewThe Journal of international medical research2022
Comparison between clinical trials and real-world evidence studies on biologics for severe asthma.
Review in The Journal of international medical research, 2022. 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.
- Long-Term Adherence to Benralizumab and Sustained Clinical Benefits in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Insights from GALERNA, a Retrospective Real-World Study in Spain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) and Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) Safety Comparison Based on Data from EudraVigilance Database.Hematology reports · 2025Article
- The Comparative Effectiveness of Mepolizumab and Benralizumab in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Asthma.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Monoclonal antibodies in severe asthma: outcomes from real-world data.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The assessment of dupilumab in children with moderate-to-severe asthma and comorbid type 2 inflammatory diseases.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Real-world outcomes of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in Canada: an observational study.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2024Article
- Clinical remission and control in severe asthma: agreements and disagreements.Drugs in context · 2024Review
- Baseline Characteristics of Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Severe Asthma as Potential Predictors of Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Omalizumab Transitions in Severe Asthma: Factors Influencing Switching Decisions and Timing for Optimal Response.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the more widespread availability of biological drugs with specific mechanisms of action has led to significant breakthroughs in the management of severe asthma. Over time, numerous randomised clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these biologics and define the eligibility criteria of patients suitable for various therapeutic options. These studies were conducted under controlled conditions not always applicable to real life. For this and other reasons, real-world evidence and pragmatic studies are required to provide useful information on the effectiveness of biological drugs and their safety, even in the long term. Because differences in outcomes have sometimes emerged between clinical trials and real-life studies, it is important to clarify the causes of these discrepancies and define the significance of the results of studies conducted in the course of daily clinical practice. Thus, a scientific debate is ongoing, and no consensus has been reached. The purpose of this narrative review is to analyse the differences between randomised trials and real-world evidence studies, focusing on their roles in guiding clinicians among different therapeutic options and understanding the reasons for the large discrepancies often found in the results obtained.
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.