ReviewFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Finding the right tool for the specific task: navigating RWE tools and checklists.
Review in Future oncology (London, England), 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.
- Mapping the Use of Real-World Evidence Across the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation: Methodological Considerations, Challenges, and Opportunities for Harmonization.Journal of market access & health policy · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to support product approvals and label expansions, as well as clinical and payer decision-making. Various tools (e.g. frameworks, checklists) have been developed to help inform and assess the robustness and quality of real-world study design and reporting. This targeted review provides a practical guide for leveraging these tools to increase awareness and utility for decision-makers. A pre-defined search strategy was applied to identify articles from PubMed. Articles published from 1 January 2020, through 4 October 2024 were included and reviewed to identify relevant tools aimed at assessing RWE study planning, reporting, or quality assessment. Key information regarding each was extracted and summarized including strengths, limitations, and included domains. 119 articles were initially identified, of which 15 were included after screening, referencing a total of 17 tools. These 17 tools varied in format and structure, ranging from detailed guidelines and templates to checklists and questionnaires. Utility and application of the tools identified in this targeted review vary across the evaluation of study planning, reporting, and quality. Selection of the appropriate tool depends on several factors including intended purpose of the tool, intended real-world study design, and the availability of study documentation.
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.