Cited by 13

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Post-approval evidence generation: a shared responsibility for healthcare

Abbasi, Ali, Rivera, Donna, Curtis, Lesley H., Califf, Robert M.·2024·Nature Medicine

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-024-03241-x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Expanded analyses in populations representative of routine care strengthen the relevance of the current findings for clinical and regulatory decision-making.

    “while expanded analyses in populations representative of routine care strengthen the relevance of the current findings for clinical and regulatory decision-making.6-8,13”
  • The current findings align closely with early and underpowered evidence from randomized trials with few clinical end points.

    “This aligns closely with early and underpowered evidence from randomized trials with few clinical end points”
  • This study exemplifies how real-world evidence can meaningfully complement randomized trials through structured and rigorous analyses.

    “This study also exemplifies how real-world evidence can meaningfully complement randomized trials through structured and rigorous analyses.13-16”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/4e5igl9 (12 January 2016).
  2. Cooke, N. J. & Hilton, M. L. (eds.) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (National Academies Press, 2015).
  3. Abbasi, A. B., Curtis, L. H., Fleisher, L. A. & Califf, R. M. JAMA 332, 412–417 (2024). · DOI
  4. Mackay, C. B., Antonelli, K. R., Bruinooge, S. S., Saint Onge, J. M. & Ellis, S. D. Cancer 123, 2893–2900 (2017). · DOI
  5. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. https://go.nature.com/4e5K34V (31 October 2023).
  6. The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/3MqItik (14 November 2023).
  7. US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/43MUG74 (5 February 2023).
  8. US Food and Drug Administration. https://go.nature.com/4dMDYL2 (2 May 2024).
  9. Sweet, K. L. et al. Clin. Cancer Res. 29, 2179–2183 (2023). · DOI
  10. Mangoni, A. A. et al. BMC Rheumatol. 3, 10 (2019). · DOI
  11. Pulte, E. D. et al. Oncologist 27, 149–157 (2022). · DOI
  12. Bhatnagar, V. et al. Blood 130, 4352 (2017).
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://go.nature.com/3XoaQE6 (21 September 2022).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Abbasi, A., Rivera, D., Curtis, L. H., & Califf, R. M.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2024-09-13
Volume
30
Issue
11
Pages
3046-3049
ISSN
  • 1078-8956
  • 1546-170X
Cited by
13
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review