THE CURRENT STATUS AND GLOBAL RESEARCH ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE IN ONCOLOGY CARE PATHWAYS 2010-2024: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Thi Phuong Thao Nguyen, MD, MSc1, Saruultuya Nergui, MD, MSc2, Duc Huy Le, MD, MBA3, Nhat Vo, MD, MSc4, Balázs Nagy, MSc, PhD5, Zoltán Vokó, MD, MSc, PhD5.
1Center for Health Technology Assessment & Doctoral College, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Viet Nam, 2Bayangol Health Center, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 3Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, 4Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, 5Center for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
1Center for Health Technology Assessment & Doctoral College, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; Hue University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue, Viet Nam, 2Bayangol Health Center, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, 3Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, 4Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, 5Center for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence (RWE) increasingly informs oncology decision-making, yet its global use across the cancer care pathway remains poorly mapped. We evaluated the current status and research trends of RWE in cancer care pathways from 2010 to 2024 using bibliometric methods.
METHODS: Three databases were searched (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for English-language original articles and reviews from 2010 to 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the records. Also, we piloted 150 records to confirm agreement (Cohen's κ ≥ 0.60). Bibliometric indicators were computed in Bibliometrix (R) and Microsoft Excel. VOSviewer was used for co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic maps.
RESULTS: We identified 1,285 publications from 420 sources that met the inclusion criteria. Annual publication output increased by 31.4% per year, with an average of 11.9 co-authors per document. Among the leading countries, the United States (23.6%), the United Kingdom (9.6%), and Germany (7.1%) led. The thematic center of gravity shifted from cytotoxic/targeted agents to immuno-oncology. Regarding study design, the majority were retrospective cohort designs (51.5%), but rigorous causal-inference designs were rare. Data sources were mainly chart or medical-record reviews (24.4%) and registries (21.8%). Moreover, treatment accounted for 74% of pathway coverage. Most studies originated in high-income countries, while those from low- and middle-income countries accounted for less than 2%, underscoring a misalignment with the global cancer burden.
CONCLUSIONS: In the past decade, RWE in oncology has moved from a niche focus to mainstream research, yet it remains centered on treatment, retrospective in design, and concentrated in high-income regions. Future cancer care will be truly precise when RWE represents the entire real world.
METHODS: Three databases were searched (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for English-language original articles and reviews from 2010 to 2024. Two reviewers independently screened the records. Also, we piloted 150 records to confirm agreement (Cohen's κ ≥ 0.60). Bibliometric indicators were computed in Bibliometrix (R) and Microsoft Excel. VOSviewer was used for co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic maps.
RESULTS: We identified 1,285 publications from 420 sources that met the inclusion criteria. Annual publication output increased by 31.4% per year, with an average of 11.9 co-authors per document. Among the leading countries, the United States (23.6%), the United Kingdom (9.6%), and Germany (7.1%) led. The thematic center of gravity shifted from cytotoxic/targeted agents to immuno-oncology. Regarding study design, the majority were retrospective cohort designs (51.5%), but rigorous causal-inference designs were rare. Data sources were mainly chart or medical-record reviews (24.4%) and registries (21.8%). Moreover, treatment accounted for 74% of pathway coverage. Most studies originated in high-income countries, while those from low- and middle-income countries accounted for less than 2%, underscoring a misalignment with the global cancer burden.
CONCLUSIONS: In the past decade, RWE in oncology has moved from a niche focus to mainstream research, yet it remains centered on treatment, retrospective in design, and concentrated in high-income regions. Future cancer care will be truly precise when RWE represents the entire real world.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
RWD134
Topic
Real World Data & Information Systems, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Distributed Data & Research Networks
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Oncology