Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41294691›Full record

ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025

A Narrative Review of the Strengths and Limitations of Real-World Evidence in Comparison to Randomized Clinical Trials: What Are the Opportunities in Thoracic Oncology for Real-World Evidence to Shine?

Peter M Ellis, Larissa Long, Courtney H Coschi, Arani Sathiyapalan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

Peter M EllisDepartment Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1590-2130
Larissa LongFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Courtney H CoschiDepartment Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Arani SathiyapalanDepartment Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials are considered the gold standard for the evaluation of new interventions and therapies. The results from randomized clinical trials are highly influential in treatment decision-making and decisions about the implementation of new therapeutic options within the field of oncology. This article describes a narrative review of the literature to further explore the strengths and limitations of real-world evidence in comparison to randomized clinical trials and provides a commentary on opportunities for real-world evidence in thoracic malignancies. However, randomized trials often exclude oncology patients with poorer functional status or comorbidities which are routinely considered for treatment in real-world practice. Real-world data may complement existing data from randomized clinical trials and play an important role in evaluating patterns and outcomes of care, informing everyday oncology practice. While real-world data is increasingly reported in the medical literature, strengths and limitations exist which can also limit their applicability. More work is needed to standardize methodologies for real-world studies.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicThoracic NeoplasmsHumanslimitationsreal world evidencestrengths

Identifiers

PMID41294691
PMCPMC12651554

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.