ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Navigating the Real World: A Scoping Review of Structured Frameworks to Effectively Identify, Evaluate, and Select Real-World Data Sources for Fit-for-Purpose Studies.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodologies for generating and evaluating clinical and performance evidence for high-risk and innovative medical devices andFrontiers in medical technology · 2026Pooled it
- Repurposing Registries: Completeness of Real-World Data for Regulatory and HTA Purposes in Three Cancer-Focused Registries.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Automating the Management of Extraspinal Findings in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Spine Studies Using a Privacy-Preserving Large Language Model: Retrospective Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review of Recent Advances in Diagnosis, Biomarker Discovery, and Drug Development.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Modifying disease registries to address the evolving field in rare diseases: the iSMAc/ITASMAc experience in spinal muscular atrophy.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential of real-world data (RWD), particularly from patient registries, has been increasingly recognized over the last decade by academia, regulators, and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies for its role in assessing a product's effectiveness and supporting regulatory submissions. The selection of an appropriate RWD source is of primary concern, since the success of regulatory processes depends on the quality and relevance of the data. In more recent years, EMA and FDA have released extensive guidance on the use of RWD to produce evidence. Simultaneously, public and private research institutions have proposed structured frameworks developed to guide stakeholders in evaluating and selecting "fit-for-purpose" RWD sources. This scoping review provides an overview of these structured frameworks, identifying nine key tools, including the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST) and the Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data (SPIFD2). Each framework is briefly described, followed by a comparative analysis of the criteria they assess. These criteria relate to dimensions such as study design, data reliability, data relevance, ethical considerations, and practical factors such as cost and feasibility. Our findings indicate that while these frameworks offer robust tools for ensuring the suitability of RWD sources, each has unique strengths and limitations depending on the specific context of use. By providing a comprehensive understanding of these frameworks, this review aims to assist stakeholders in identifying and/or evaluating and/or selecting the most appropriate RWD sources for generating high-quality evidence for regulatory and HTA purposes.
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.