ReviewDrugs & aging2026
Leveraging Real-World Data for Clinical Decision Making in Geriatric Oncology.
Review in Drugs & aging, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Older adults represent most patients with cancer worldwide, yet they remain substantially underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), limiting the evidence available to guide treatment decisions in this growing population. Real-world data (RWD), defined as data routinely collected from clinical practice such as electronic health records, administrative claims, clinical registries, wearable devices, and patient-reported outcomes, offer an opportunity to complement traditional trial evidence. In this narrative review, we aimed to synthesize the potential benefits, limitations, and considerations in leveraging RWD for clinical decision making in geriatric oncology. When analyzed rigorously, RWD can generate real-world evidence (RWE) that reflects the heterogeneity of patients seen in routine care and provides insights into treatment patterns, safety, effectiveness, healthcare utilization, and patient-centered outcomes. In geriatric oncology, these data sources are particularly valuable for capturing multidimensional health profiles that extend beyond chronological age, including comorbidities, functional status, and social determinants of health. RWD can also help characterize healthcare trajectories, identify predictors of treatment tolerance and toxicity, and evaluate outcomes such as quality of life and resource utilization. However, important challenges remain, including issues related to data quality and standardization, confounding and bias inherent to observational analyses, ethical considerations surrounding data sharing, and difficulties integrating RWE into clinical decision making. Advances in artificial intelligence, global data networks, regulatory acceptance of RWE, decentralized clinical trials, and expanded data infrastructure may further enhance the role of RWD in oncology. When used rigorously, RWE can help fill evidence gaps and support more personalized care for older adults with cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371353What 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.