ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Mapping eligibility criteria in oncology target trial emulations using real-world data: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTarget trial emulations often face challenges in accurately identifying the intended target population within real-world data (RWD) because eligibility criteria cannot always be directly mapped to available variables. This scoping review aimed to systematically characterize the proportion of eligibility criteria from oncology target trials that are successfully mapped to their emulated counterparts and to describe the approaches used for this mapping.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE for peer-reviewed studies published between January 1, 2016, and April 23, 2025, that were designed to emulate oncology drug intervention trials using RWD. For each target trial emulation, we recorded design elements, database types, eligibility criteria, and methodological details. We identified how each target trial eligibility criterion was mapped to available RWD. For each applicable criterion, we assessed whether it was explicitly represented and conceptually consistent with the target trial; criteria meeting both were classified as mapped. Eligibility criteria were categorized into 11 domains representing key demographic, clinical, and safety considerations.
resultsOur search identified 200 studies, of which 47 reported the results of 74 individual target trial emulations. Of these 74, 42 (56.8%) were emulations of actual clinical trials and 32 (43.2%) were emulations of hypothetical target trials. Most target trial emulations used registry data (30, 40.5%) or electronic health records (29, 39.2%) as their primary data sources. Emulations of actual clinical trials specified a median of 29 (interquartile range [IQR] 25.0-34.0) eligibility criteria and mapped a median of 35.5% (IQR 27.3%-40.6%) of these criteria per emulation, whereas emulations of hypothetical trials specified a median of 5.5 (IQR 4.3-12.8) eligibility criteria and mapped a median of 91.7% (IQR 70%-100%) of these criteria per emulation. Among 1,222 individual criteria, demographic criteria were most frequently mapped (46, 93.9%), while safety and concomitant risk-related criteria were least frequently mapped (7, 3.7%). The most common mapping method was direct mapping using administrative coding systems (37, 72.5%); no studies reported using common data models or computational methods.
conclusionsThis scoping review of oncology target trial emulations found substantial heterogeneity in how eligibility criteria were mapped, with potential implications for emulation results. These findings highlight the need for greater transparency and for methods that extend beyond reliance on structured administrative codes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.