Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40935906›Full record

ArticleOncology and therapy2025

Real-World Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials: A Podcast Discussion of the Relative Strengths and Limitations of These Complementary Designs for Cancer Research.

Adam Brufsky, Christos Vaklavas, Joanne C Ryan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Adam BrufskyUPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. brufskyam@upmc.edu.
Christos VaklavasDivision of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Joanne C RyanPfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the benchmark for assessing the safety and efficacy of treatments but are subject to some inherent limitations, such as restrictive inclusion criteria and underrepresentation of certain patient groups. Studies based on diverse real-world data sources provide complementary evidence that can help fill knowledge gaps, particularly by providing safety and outcome data for patients not typically included in RCTs. However, real-world data studies have their own limitations. This podcast aims to be a resource for clinicians by exploring the strengths and limitations of RCTs and real-world studies in the context of cancer research. The hosts, both of whom are practicing oncologists, provide context for the emergence of modern real-world studies and advice for interpreting real-world evidence. As a supplement to learnings from RCTs, real-world evidence can inform the treatment decision-making process in the clinic and support decisions made by regulatory bodies. This podcast is part 1 of a three-part series discussing real-world studies.Podcast and infographic available for this article. Podcast video (MP4 66494 KB).

Indexed as

Randomized controlled trialReal-world evidenceReal-world studiesStudy designTreatment decision making

Identifiers

PMID40935906
PMCPMC12647498

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.