ArticleAdvances in therapy2025
Real-World Evidence Acceptability and Use in Breast Cancer Treatment Decision-Making in the United States: Call-to-Action from a Multidisciplinary Think Tank.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2025. 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.
- Addressing Unmet Needs in the Management of Small Cell Lung Cancer: Treatment of Brain Metastases, Quality of Life, and the Role of Real-World Evidence.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Clinically Meaningful, Patient-Centered Endpoints for Real-World Evidence Generation in Breast Cancer: Perspectives from the Multidisciplinary TRIUMPH Initiative.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Exploration of real-world outcomes in patients with previously treated HR+/HER2- and triple negative metastatic breast cancer.Scientific reports · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complementing randomized controlled trials, real-world evidence (RWE) from observational analyses can extend clinical insights in oncology. While healthcare stakeholders have published rigorous RWE frameworks and resources, a multidisciplinary think tank was established to further advance acceptance and use of RWE in treatment decision-making, with the focus on breast cancer (while recognizing relevance in oncology more broadly). Members discussed perceptions of RWE from a clinical perspective, across domains of data, methodology, and mindset, and "calls-to-action" for stakeholders. Agreement was reached on a primary "call-to-action," to develop clinically-relevant, patient-informed, real-world endpoints, and secondary "calls-to-action": establish a multidisciplinary consensus forum; publish examples of unique RWE value; build upon existing frameworks and resources; and tailor an approach for exhibiting utility to guideline bodies.
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.