ReviewAnnals of medicine2026
Choosing real-world data for clinical and epidemiological research: methodological lessons from NHIRD and TriNetX-A narrative review.
Review in Annals of medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping TriNetX-Based Real-World Evidence Publications by Clinical Domain and Study Purpose, 2018-2025: A Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- When evidence meets artificial intelligence.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Lower Risk of Incident Dementia with SGLT2 Inhibitor Versus DPP-4 Inhibitor Initiation in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Prior Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- Low zinc status and long-term risk of incident sepsis in patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Long-term comorbidities and mortality associations with treatment in generalized pustular psoriasis: a multi-institutional cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLarge-scale real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used in clinical and epidemiological research, although database-specific structures and limitations may affect study validity and applicability. The Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) and the TriNetX network are two widely used RWD sources. This review compares their key features, strengths, and limitations and discusses approaches to address methodological challenges in real-world studies. DISCUSSION: The NHIRD comprises comprehensive, population-based, longitudinal claims data covering nearly the entire Taiwanese population. Its strengths include minimal selection bias and broad follow-up capacity. However, limitations include infrequent updates, limited clinical detail, and a Taiwan-specific context that may restrict generalizability. In contrast, TriNetX is a multinational federated network of electronic medical records from diverse healthcare systems, offering larger and more heterogeneous populations, richer clinical variables, and near real-time analytic capability, but with potential hospital-based selection bias and limited flexibility due to its fixed analytic interface. Representative studies published between 2010 and 2024 demonstrate the application of both databases across multiple medical disciplines. To mitigate data-related limitations, commonly used strategies include refined inclusion and exclusion criteria, proxy variables for unavailable measures, and triangulation with external datasets, which can strengthen study validity and interpretability.
conclusionsNHIRD and TriNetX are complementary real-world data sources, each with distinct strengths and limitations. Aligning research objectives with database characteristics is essential for appropriate study design. Recognition of platform-specific trade-offs and application of targeted methodological strategies support the validity and generalizability of real-world evidence.
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.