ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Incorporating external controls in the design of randomized clinical trials: a case study in solid tumors.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- External Control Augmentation Increases Estimates Precision for Finerenone plus Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- BIRTH: Bayesian integration of real-world data for trials with hybrid arms.BMC medical research methodology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of historical external control data in clinical trials has grown in interest and needs when considering the design of future trials. Hybrid control designs can be more efficient to achieve the same power with fewer patients and limited resources. The literature is sparse on appropriate statistical methods which can account for the differences between historical external controls and the control patients in a study. In this article, we illustrate the analysis framework of a clinical trial if a hybrid control design was used after determining an RCT may not be feasible.
methodsWe utilize two previously completed RCTs in nonsquamous NSCLC and a nationwide electronic health record derived de-identified database as examples and compare 5 analysis methods on each trial, as well as a set of simulations to determine operating characteristics of such designs.
resultsIn single trial estimation, the Case Weighted Adaptive Power Prior provided estimated treatment hazard ratios consistent with the original trial's conclusions with narrower confidence intervals. The simulation studies showed that the Case Weighted Adaptive Power Prior achieved the highest power (and well controlled type-1 error) across all 5 methods with consistent study sample size.
conclusionsBy following the proposed hybrid control framework, one can design a hybrid control trial transparently and accounting for differences between control groups while controlling type-1 error and still achieving efficiency gains from the additional contribution from external controls.
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.