ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Putting the substance in substantial evidence: an evidence-based approach to flexible drug regulation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How life-cycle real-world evidence can bridge evidentiary gaps in precision oncology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For new drugs or indications, substantial evidence of clinical effectiveness is required for market authorization. In most jurisdictions, substantial evidence is not explicitly defined. Health regulators exercise discretion and are increasingly tolerant of earlier or less mature evidence. To align with flexible evidentiary standards, we argue for the adoption of a principle and, context-based approach to the evidence threshold. Our approach aims to balance the potential benefits and harms of accelerated authorization, low therapeutic value, and safety, based on a value of information (VoI) framework. In our VoI framework, substantial evidence exists when the expected net health value of further research is less than or equal to zero. We operationalize this approach through two case examples that mirror real-time decision factors such as uncertainty, risk preferences and time inputs. As the evidentiary assessment landscape shifts towards flexibility, iterative and clearly defined approaches to risk assessment are warranted. Clarity will stimulate transparency and accountability for both stakeholders and regulators.
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.