ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022
Uncontrolled Extensions of Clinical Trials and the Use of External Controls-Scoping Opportunities and Methods.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Long-term outcome trajectories and health-related quality of life after endovascular thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Hazan J; Liu KY; Howard R. Clarity AD open-label extension data do not robustly confirm disease course modification by lecanemab in ApoE4 heterozygotes and non-carriers. # TJPAD-D-26-00165.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor response for: "Schneider LS, Kennedy RE, Cutter G. Caution in interpreting disease-modification claims with lecanemab: selective reporting and causal inference. Alzheimer's & Dementia. 2026".Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Clinical Trials With Pragmatic Elements: A Review of Use Cases and Real-World Data Utilization.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Multivariate Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing for Repeated Measures Data With Application to External Control Arms in Open-Label Extension Studies.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2025Article
- Editorial: External control arms for single-arm studies: methodological considerations and applications.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2025Article
- Exploring the discrepancies between clinical trials and real-world data: A small-cell lung cancer study.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Enriching single-arm clinical trials with external controls: possibilities and pitfalls.Blood advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increased interest in real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical and regulatory decision making and the need to evaluate long-term benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products raise the importance of understanding the use of external controls (ECs) for uncontrolled extensions of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched clinicaltrials.gov from 2009 to 2019 for uncontrolled extensions and assessed the use of ECs in the trial protocol registry and PubMed. We present characteristics of identified uncontrolled extensions, their adoption of ECs, and a qualitative appraisal of published uncontrolled extensions with ECs according to good pharmacoepidemiologic practice. The number of uncontrolled extensions increased slightly across the study period, resulting in a total of 1,115 studies. Most originated from phase III RCTs (62.2%) and specified safety outcomes (61.9% among those with specified outcomes). Most uncontrolled extensions incorporated no control group with only 7 out of 1,115 (0.6%) employing ECs. For those studies with ECs, all involved treatments for rare conditions and assessment of effectiveness. Attempts to balance comparison groups varied from none mentioned to propensity score matching. We noted consistent deficiencies in outcome ascertainment methods and approaches to address attrition bias. The contrast of the large and growing number of uncontrolled extensions with the small number of studies that utilized ECs showed clear opportunities for enhancement in design, measurement, and analysis of uncontrolled extensions to allow causal inferences on long-term treatment effects. As extensions continue to expand within RWE regulatory frameworks, development of guidelines for use of EC with uncontrolled extensions is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.