ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Quantifying the Age of Evidence: Lessons From Cardiovascular Drugs.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAll evidence-based medical decisions rely on the assumption that the evidence being used is applicable to current populations. To date, the age of evidence is not typically measured nor reported in systematic reviews.
methodsWe sought to develop a method to quantify the age of evidence for medical interventions, using statins and sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors as exemplars, which may facilitate evaluating its potential outdatedness. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of all Cochrane reviews evaluating the effects of these drugs on cardiovascular disease (CVD) management up to August 2024, summarising the evidence and calculating the lag in time between patient enrolment in trials and current decision-making (August 2024).
resultsWe identified 57 Cochrane reviews on statins, with 9 (15.8%) meeting our criteria, and 6 reviews on SGLT-2 inhibitors, with 2 (33.3%) being eligible. The 9 statin reviews include 153 different trials, enrolling participants from 1988 to 2017, spanning 28 years. The 2 SGLT-2 inhibitor reviews involve 67 trials from 2008 to 2021, spanning 13 years. The median age of evidence for statins is 24.1 years, compared to 8.6 years for SGLT-2 inhibitors. Among the statin review topics, evidence was most robust for statins in the context of primary prevention of CVD.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the potential outdatedness of long-established treatments like statins and suggest that reporting the age of evidence in systematic reviews may facilitate outdatedness assessments. We propose that future Cochrane reviews report the age of evidence, as this could significantly enhance the decision-making process in evidence-based medicine.
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.