Real world data is used as a term to make it sound like one of the strengths of the study design. It has no. meaningful definition and is used dishonestly to hide the weaknesses. Referees and journals should demand that the term be removed and the actual strengths and weaknesses are described.
Particularly pleased to see two points that I strongly advocated for included in the paper:
1/ Using the term "routinely collected data" rather than "real-world evidence"...