Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38469965›Full record

ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2024

Dark Data in Real-World Evidence: Challenges, Implications, and the Imperative of Data Literacy in Medical Research.

Hun-Sung Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Real-world data and evidence: pioneering frontiers in precision oncology.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

1 author.

Hun-Sung KimDepartment of Medical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7002-7300

Funding

Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies are crucial and complementary in generating clinical evidence. RCTs provide controlled settings to validate the clinical effect of specific drugs or medical devices, while RWE integrates extrinsic factors, encompassing external influences affecting real-world scenarios, thus challenging RCT results in practical applications. In this study, we explore the impact of extrinsic factors on RWE outcomes, focusing on "dark data," which refers to data collected but not used or excluded from the analyses. Dark data can arise in many ways during research process, from selecting study samples to data collection and analysis. However, even unused or unanalyzed dark data hold potential insights, providing a comprehensive view of clinical contexts. Extrinsic factors lead to divergent RWE outcomes that could differ from RCTs beyond statistical correction's scope. Two main types of dark data exist: "known-unknown" and "unknown-unknown." The distinction between these dark data types highlights RWE's complexity. The transformation of

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchLiteracyData CollectionHumansBig DataDark DataData LiteracyRandomized Controlled TrialsReal-World DataReal-World Evidence

Identifiers

PMID38469965
PMCPMC10927386

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.