ReviewIntegrative medicine research2025
Patient-Focused Drug Development and Real World Study.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence Map Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials: Chinese Patent Medicines and Classic Traditional Chinese Medicine Prescriptions.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The NLRP3 inflammasome in osteoarthritis: a systematic review of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine efficacy and underlying mechanisms.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life assessment in trials testing tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoints inhibitors in early-stage NSCLC.The oncologist · 2025Pooled it
- Patient preferences in the benefit-risk assessment of atopic dermatitis treatments in China: A nationwide survey.JAAD international · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-focused drug development (PFDD) is an important direction in the field of medical research and is of great significance to the development of medicine. In recent years, PFDD and real-world study (RWS) have gained much interest, of which both have their advantages. This study aims to promote research methods innovation and optimize clinical research design and implementation. Methods: After a brief introduction of PFDD and RWS, this review focused on the comparison of clinical trials of PFDD and RWS in terms of objectives, Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) elements, research team members, data acquisition, and research key points, and clarified the feasibility and significance of "patient-focused RWS" research model. Results: PFDD emphasized that patients' needs as well as the willingness and satisfaction of patients should be considered throughout the whole research process and the patient experience data should be collected during the study development and drug use. RWS emphasized the facticity of research implementation environment and the breadth of patient sources, which concerned the problem of the extrapolation of study results, the clinical localization, and patient applicability of the target drug. However, there is a connection between both of the above. Both clinical trials of PFDD and RWS bring benefits to patients. Conclusions: Combining PFDD idea and RWS research method to carry out new research will maximize the benefits for patients. The study model combining the PFDD concept with RWS can facilitate drug development and dissemination, which can be popularized and applied in various research areas. This study can innovate research methods and provide new ideas for future research.
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.