Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42619599›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2026

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round-up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 28.

Paul Arora, Kirk Geale, Sreeram V Ramagopalan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Paul AroraDivision of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Kirk GealeAthagoras, Gerbergasse 4, Basel, CH-4001, Switzerland.
Sreeram V RamagopalanQuantify Research, Hantverkargatan 8, Stockholm, 112 21, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this update, we consider the role of real-world evidence in the European Union's new Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) process and also review a systematic review and meta-analysis of the concordance between target trial emulations and their benchmarking randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalEuropean UnionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEU Health Technology Assessment RegulationEuropean Medicines Agencyhealth technology assessmentJoint Clinical AssessmentPICOrandomized controlled trialreal-world datareal-world evidencetarget trial emulation

Identifiers

PMID42619599
PMCPMC13556913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.