ArticleCancers2025
Evaluating the Quality of Real-World Data on Adherence to Oral Endocrine Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients: How Real Is Real-World Data?
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A governance framework for medical code standardization to enhance multi-institutional data quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Polyphenol-enriched fraction ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare estimates of adherence to oral endocrine therapy (OET) based on real-world data (RWD) and on clinical evaluation in people diagnosed with breast cancer in the public healthcare system in Catalonia (Spain).
methodsWe conducted two retrospective cohort studies. Cohort 1 (RWD) consisted of women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 in the public healthcare system of Catalonia (Spain). Sources of RWD were the pharmacy billing register, hospital discharge records, and the Catalan health division's central insurance registry. Nonadherence was defined as below 80% adherence in the first year of treatment. Data for cohort 2 came from two population-based cancer registries in Girona and Tarragona (Catalonia), with diagnoses from 2007 to 2011. We evaluated the impact of variables missing from RWD, such as stage and hormonal status. Analyses were performed using a chi-square test and logistic regression, with results stratified by age group and drug type.
resultsNonadherence at one year was 10.9% in cohort 1 and 11.3% in cohort 2. When we reviewed the medical records of a selection of nonadherent women from cohort 1, we found only 59.4% had documented treatment interruptions. Reasons for interruptions in the patients from RWD cohort included adverse effects (48.8%), patient decision (40.0%), medical reasons (29.4%), and other clinical causes (14.7%). Women aged under 50 years and those receiving tamoxifen or a sequential regimen had lower adherence. Determinants associated with nonadherence were similar in both approaches used.
conclusionsThis study confirms the validity of estimating adherence with RWD from the Spanish national health system, although when combined with reviewing medical records, this may provide more reliable and higher-quality data. The RWD method provides valuable evidence to help oncologists discuss adherence with their patients.
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.