ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
A scoping review of real-world data sources for retrospective oncology analysis in Japan.
Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer remains the leading cause of mortality in Japan, creating significant demand for high-quality real-world evidence to support clinical research and decision making. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of oncology studies using real-world data (RWD) in Japan, assessing the suitability of these data sources for oncology research. Methods: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and Google Scholar for studies published from 1 January 2020 to 28 February 2025. Eligibility criteria focused on retrospective observational studies utilizing readily available RWD databases. The availability of information on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, genomic information, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes, as well as data source limitations reported by authors, was extracted and analyzed. Results: Of 484 studies screened, 121 met the eligibility criteria. The majority utilized administrative claims data (52%), followed by registries (44%) and electronic health record (EHR)-derived data (6%). Limitations varied by data source. Claims data lacked clinical detail, resulting in challenges in accurate study cohort identification and outcomes research; registries contained deep genomic information but had high clinical data missingness and restricted cohorts; EHR-derived data provided detailed clinical insights but were less established in scale. Conclusion: This scoping review highlights the strengths and limitations of Japanese RWD sources, revealing the frequent use of claims data in oncology research despite their limited clinical granularity. Future research should increasingly leverage clinically rich and longitudinal data sources, particularly EHR-derived datasets, to enable more precise cohort identification and capture meaningful clinical outcomes, better supporting clinical and research needs in Japanese oncology.
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.