Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40679790›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Hope is Not a Strategy: Using Robust Real-World Evidence to Make Better Clinical Development Decisions.

Nicolle M Gatto, Ulka B Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicolle M GattoAetion, Inc., 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10001, USA. nicolle.gatto@aetion.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9659-7811
Ulka B CampbellAetion, Inc., 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10001, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3503-8178

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical development delays and failures do not serve public health. Reliance solely on expert opinion or historical patterns rather than evidence from representative, real-world point-of-care data about the indication results in suboptimal trial design, missed opportunities, and uninterpretable findings. Investment in real-world evidence (RWE) generation to build a deep, comprehensive, and current understanding of the characteristics, care, and outcomes of the indicated population is essential to improving clinical development decision making. Despite the recognized value of RWE, this evidence generation is not done systematically. Here we make integrated RWE generation more compelling and practicable by addressing concerns we have heard from biopharma leaders and, for emerging RWE leaders, providing a blueprint for designing real-world studies in a phased approach that aligns with clinical development investment. Our work is intended to facilitate more widespread adoption of integrated RWE generation, beginning early in development, so that robust RWE is in hand at the right time for evidence-based decision making by the sponsor, regulators, and payers.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentEvidence-Based MedicineClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingHumansResearch DesignClinical developmentReal-world dataReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID40679790
PMCPMC12579674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.