ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2024
Characteristics and impact of real-world evidence studies in oncology: comprehensive mapping review of publications evaluating targeted therapies in solid tumours.
Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of real-world data sources for retrospective oncology analysis in Japan.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Drug exposure definitions reported in real-world evidence studies on oncology medicines in patients with colorectal cancer: a scoping review.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A mapping review of real-world evidence (RWE) publications on targeted therapy (TT) for solid tumours was carried out to describe their characteristics, strengths, and limitations. Methods: RWE publications were identified that: (i) focused on TTs in patients with solid tumours; (ii) included study objectives of effectiveness, predictive or prognostic factors, safety or quality of life; (iii) were published between 1 January 2020 and 22 December 2022. Associations between study variables and journal impact factor (IF) were explored through regression and cluster network analyses. Results: Of 7775 publications identified, 1251 were eligible for analysis. The number of publications per year increased over time. Most studies were conducted in Asia (50%), Europe (25%), and North America (17%), with only 8% in more than one country. Data sources were mostly health records (55%) and registries (11%). Most studies were retrospective (85%) and only 16% were population based. Gastrointestinal tumours were the most frequently studied (30%), followed by lung (22%) and breast (21%). The median journal IF was 4.4. Involvement of >10 centres and studies originating from Europe were significantly associated with a higher IF (≥7) in multivariable analysis. Network analysis demonstrated strong associations between countries and the number of publications in specific tumour types. Conclusions: The number of RWE publications on TT for solid tumours is increasing, but studies are heterogeneous, mostly retrospective, and published in low IF journals. International collaboration and promotion of standardised data sources is imperative to enhance the relevance of RWE research to complement clinical guidelines and impact clinical practice.
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.