ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023
Strategy for Generating Blinded Evidence for Single-Arm Trials with External Controls Using Expert Review of Home Video.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The unregulated majority: who ensures quality in non-submission real-world studies?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeurodegenerative diseases cause developmental delays and loss of milestones in infants and children. However, scalable outcome measures that quantify features meaningful to parents/caregivers (P/CGs) and have regulatory precedence are lacking for assessing the effectiveness of treatments in clinical trials of neurodegenerative disorders. To address this gap, we developed an innovative, blinded strategy for single-arm trials with external controls using expert panel review of home video.
methodWe identified meaningful, observable, and objective developmental milestones from iterative interviews with P/CGs and clinical experts. Subsequently, we standardized video recording procedures and instructions to ensure consistency in how P/CGs solicited each activity. In practice, videos would be graded by an expert panel blinded to treatment. To ensure blinding and quality control, video recordings from interim time points would be randomly interspersed. We conducted a pilot study and a pretest of grading to test feasibility and improve the final strategy.
resultsThe five P/CGs participating in the pilot study found the instructions clear, selected activities important and reflective of their children's abilities, and recordings at-home preferrable to in-clinic assessments. The three grading experts found the videos easy to grade and the milestones clinically meaningful.
conclusionOur standardized strategy enables expert panel grading of developmental milestone achievements using at-home recordings, blinded to treatment and post-baseline time points. This rigorous and objective scoring system has broad applicability in various disease contexts, with or without external controls. Moreover, our strategy facilitates flexible, continued data collection and the videos can be archived for future analyses.
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.