ArticleThe oncologist2026
Target trial emulation studies in oncology: a comprehensive analysis.
Article in The oncologist, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTarget trial emulation (TTE) has emerged as an important framework for generating comparative effectiveness real-world evidence. However, the methodological characteristics and clinical utility of this framework in oncology remain insufficiently characterized. This study systematically evaluated the characteristics of oncological emulation studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection databases from inception to December 22, 2023, to identify oncology-focused TTE studies. Study characteristics, TTE components, and consistency with corresponding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages and compared using Chi-square tests in SPSS (version 27.0), with P-values <0 .05 considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 54 TTEs were included. Most were conducted in the United States (22, 40.7%), and publications peaked in 2023 (17, 31.5%). Colorectal cancer (13, 24.1%) was the most frequently investigated cancer type. Studies predominantly used data from national databases (18, 33.3%). While all studies prospectively specified the target trial protocol and emulation procedures, only 1 (1.9%) study was prospectively registered, and most emulation studies (48, 88.9%) did not reference a reporting guideline. Among the 10 RCT-TTE pairs available for comparison, 6 (60.0%) pairs achieved agreement in both statistical significance and effect estimates.
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive analysis of TTE studies in oncology, highlighting their value for generating higher-quality real-world evidence. Future efforts should prioritize prospective protocol registration and standardize reporting to enhance the credibility and reproducibility of emulation studies.
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.