ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Key Real-World Data Management Practices for Registry Evaluation and Quality Assurance.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical settings generate real-world data (RWD), which offers valuable insights into pharmaceutical effectiveness and safety. Agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) of Japan, are increasingly using Real-World Evidence (RWE) in their decision-making processes. Registries play a critical role in RWE studies by systematically collecting patient data. Implementing stringent quality control and quality assurance measures is essential to achieve RWD reliability.
methodsThis study identified the essential quality elements for registry-based RWD and developed a proposed data quality management checklist. A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature and regulatory guidelines published between 2001 and 2026 was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the websites of major regulatory agencies. Eligible studies included those addressing RWD, RWE, and data quality checklist relevant to registry-based research.
resultsIn total, 30 sources, comprising 24 publications and 6 institutional guidelines, were included. The analysis identified two core dimensions of data quality: relevance (availability, sufficiency, and representativeness) and reliability (accuracy, completeness, provenance, and timeliness). We developed a quality assessment checklist that addresses the following four key domains: study design, data collection and management, regulatory compliance, and continuous improvement.
conclusionThe proposed checklist offers a structured framework to enhance the reliability of RWD and enable systematic quality assessment. Future studies should assess its applicability across various research settings. This study supports robust data quality management, benefiting researchers, regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and healthcare institutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42542470What 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.