ReviewInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Recommendations for generating real-world evidence with regulatory-grade relevance and reliability.
Review in International journal of clinical 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
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are increasingly incorporated into regulatory decision-making to complement randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly in settings where conventional trial designs are infeasible, such as rare diseases, rare molecular subtypes, and post-marketing evaluation. Across regulatory authorities, the use of RWD/RWE is consistently framed by the fit-for-purpose principle, centered on two foundational concepts: relevance and reliability. However, the absence of operational guidance has created uncertainty regarding how academic registries and healthcare databases can be designed or upgraded to meet regulatory expectations. Drawing on practical experience with disease registries in Japan and their regulatory applications, this review proposes a purpose-oriented framework clarifying the levels of relevance and reliability required according to specific regulatory objectives. We categorize considerations into three use cases: (1) drug development for rare diseases and rare molecular subtypes; (2) Pharmacovigilance; and (3) evidence generation for clinical questions that cannot be sufficiently evaluated through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For each category, we outline essential requirements related to study design, data elements, quality management, governance, statistical planning, and operational feasibility. We further compare regulatory expectations across the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), and the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). While international convergence is evident at the level of principles, operational thresholds and implementation frameworks differ. By articulating relevance and reliability as a shared regulatory language and emphasizing purpose-driven design and early regulatory engagement, this review provides practical recommendations for generating regulatory-grade RWE that meaningfully informs regulatory decision-making while complementing conventional clinical trials.
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.