ArticleClinical and translational science2024
Generalizability in real-world trials.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating chemokine signatures and multi-omic biomarkers to predict immunotherapy response in non-small cell lung cancer: a comprehensive narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Real-world glycemic control, exploratory cardiorenal indicators, and safety of polyethylene glycol loxenatide versus semaglutide in type 2 diabetes patients: a Chinese two-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Observational
- Generalizability in real-world trials.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world evidence (RWE) trials have a key advantage over conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to their potentially better generalizability. High generalizability of study results facilitates new biological insights and enables targeted therapeutic strategies. Random sampling of RWE trial participants is regarded as the gold standard for generalizability. Additionally, the use of sample correction procedures can increase the generalizability of trial results, even when using nonrandomly sampled real-world data (RWD). This study presents descriptive evidence on the extent to which the design of currently planned or already conducted RWE trials takes sampling into account. It also examines whether random sampling or procedures for correcting nonrandom samples are considered. Based on text mining of publicly available metadata provided during registrations of RWE trials on clinicaltrials.gov, EU-PAS, and the OSF-RWE registry, it is shown that the share of RWE trial registrations with information on sampling increased from 65.27% in 2002 to 97.43% in 2022, with a corresponding increase from 14.79% to 28.30% for trials with random samples. For RWE trials with nonrandom samples, there is an increase from 0.00% to 0.95% of trials in which sample correction procedures are used. We conclude that the potential benefits of RWD in terms of generalizing trial results are not yet being fully realized.
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.