ArticlePloS one2025
Real-world evidence in gynecologic cancers presented at key oncology conferences in the United States: Distribution and factors related to high-tier acceptance.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the distribution, trends, and characteristics of types of real-world evidence (RWE) abstracts presented at key oncology congresses.
methodsData on gynecologic cancers (cervical, ovarian, endometrial, and multiple gynecologic/other) were extracted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conference databases (2018-2020) to: a) identify the proportion of clinical trial (CT) versus RWE abstracts accepted; b) describe the distribution and tier of acceptance of RWE versus CTs; c) analyze the characteristics (authorship, data source, data type, study design, outcome[s], and presence of statistically significant results) associated with RWE acceptance.
resultsOf 3163 abstracts screened, 2271 (77% RWE, 23% CTs) were included. RWE represented a higher proportion of work at SGO versus ASCO (70% vs 30%). Overall, more RWE studies versus CTs were accepted as posters (75% vs 60%), while fewer were accepted as oral presentations (4% vs 20%; p < 0.001 for both). Among RWE abstracts, 90% had academic author(s), 68% of studies were from North America, 45% used other clinical data sources, and nearly 32% reported statistically significant results. Approximately 60% of RWE were retrospective and 9% were prospective. The most common outcomes in RWE abstracts were molecular analyses (18%) and survival based on treatment efficacy (13%; p < 0.001).
conclusionRWE abstracts were accepted for presentation more frequently at SGO versus ASCO, and majority of them were presented as posters. While RWE abstracts are prevalent and provide valuable data for healthcare decision-making, they do not always achieve the visibility of CTs.
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.