ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2026
Methods Applied to Assess Real-World Effectiveness of Drugs: A Scoping Review.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Drug effectiveness evaluations are needed to bridge the gap between premarketing trials and clinical practice, but the specific methods used in such evaluations remain unclear. Therefore, this review aimed to identify pharmacoepidemiological effectiveness studies based on real-world data (RWD) and categorize them based on the methods applied and the drugs and outcomes investigated. We searched PubMed and Embase for relevant records published in the period July-December 2019. Eligible studies: (i) were RWD-based; (ii) evaluated one or multiple drug exposures, and (iii) included at least one effectiveness outcome (as primary outcome). Among 4820 identified records, 1129 passed title-abstract screening, 200 were randomly selected for full-text assessment, and 87 were ultimately included. Of these, 55 included > 1000 patients, 22 included > 10 000 patients, and 22 explicitly restricted to new users. Chemotherapy was the most common exposure (n = 32), all-cause mortality the most prevalent outcome (n = 52), and non-use of the exposure drug (n = 42) the most frequent comparator category. Survival models (n = 55) were the dominating statistical models, and 13 studies used only descriptive statistics. In conclusion, well-known pharmacoepidemiological methods were applied in the included studies, and many had large study populations. Common limitations were use of simple descriptive statistics and absence of active comparators.
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.