ArticleStatistics in medicine2025
Accounting for Misclassification of Binary Outcomes in External Control Arm Studies for Unanchored Indirect Comparisons: Simulations and Applied Example.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Constructing an External Control Arm Using the French REALYSA Cohort to Replicate Outcomes of a Randomized Trial Arm in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Accounting for Misclassification of Binary Outcomes in External Control Arm Studies for Unanchored Indirect Comparisons: Simulations and Applied Example.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-arm control trials are increasingly proposed as a potential approach for treatment evaluation. However, the limitations of this design restrict its methodological acceptability. Regulatory agencies have raised concerns about this approach, although it is sometimes required in applications based solely on such studies. Consequently, the need for accurate indirect treatment comparisons has become critical, especially when constructing external control arms using routinely collected data as outcome measurements may differ from those recorded in the single-arm trial leading to potential misclassification of outcomes. This study aimed to quantify the bias from ignoring misclassification of a binary outcome within unanchored indirect comparisons, through simulations, and to propose a likelihood-based method to correct this bias (i.e., the outcome-corrected model). Simulations demonstrated that ignoring misclassification results in significant bias and poor coverage probabilities. In contrast, the outcome-corrected model reduced bias, improved 95% confidence interval coverage probability and root mean square error in various scenarios. The methodology was applied to two hepatocellular carcinoma trials illustrating a practical application. The findings underscore the importance of addressing outcome misclassification in indirect comparisons. The proposed correction method may improve reliability in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons.
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.