ReviewJournal of comparative effectiveness research2026
Maximizing the impact of real-world evidence on cancer treatment: what do we need to achieve it?
Review in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2026. 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.
- Bridging Randomized Trial Efficacy and Real-World Effectiveness in Multiple Myeloma: Integrating Clinical Trials and Real-World Evidence for Individualized Care.European journal of haematology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an increasing number of studies using real-world data to examine outcomes of drugs in clinical practice. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully evaluate their quality and findings, extract valuable insights, acknowledge their limitations and identify gaps to advance further their use in decision-making. Here we provide an overview of the opportunities offered throughout drug lifecycle, and challenges presented by real-world evidence (RWE) studies. We also highlight the importance of the culture of transparency, along with the development of good practices for reporting RWE studies. In addition, we review common biases and other methodological aspects that can undermine the potential insights a real-world oncology study can provide. We briefly illustrate some questions that RWE studies address that can help us guide clinical decisions. Several possible future directions expected to contribute for RWE improving cancer patients' outcomes emerge, from prospective data collection initiatives to normalization of biomarker data integration or collaborative data sharing platforms.
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.