ArticleFrontiers in drug safety and regulation2023
External comparators and estimands.
Article in Frontiers in drug safety and regulation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- External Comparator Studies: Performance of Four Missing Data-Handling Approaches, Stratified by Four Different Marginal Estimators.Drug safety · 2025Article
- Examining the Effect of Missing Data and Unmeasured Confounding on External Comparator Studies: Case Studies and Simulations.Drug safety · 2024Article
- Application of the target trial emulation framework to external comparator studies.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
- External comparator studies and the joint application of the estimand and target trial emulation frameworks.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The estimand framework as defined by the ICH E9(R1) addendum aims to clearly define "the treatment effect reflecting the clinical question posed by the trial objective". It intends to achieve this goal of a clear definition by specifying the 5 estimand attributes: treatment conditions, population, endpoints, handling of intercurrent events (IEs), and population-level summary. However, hybrid clinical/observational research like External Comparators (ECs) leads to new reflections on existing attributes and to considerations for additional ones. Specifically, treatment conditions and exposure may be more difficult to handle in the EC, and especially Standard of Care (SoC) treatment needs detailed attention. The external population typically cannot be based on the classical Intention-to-treat population and constitutes also an approximation only. Endpoints may not be comparable across cohorts, and IEs may be more different than in an RCT setting, such that the hypothetical treatment policy according to the ICH E9(R1) addendum may become of greater interest especially for long-term endpoints. Finally, the necessary assumptions for some population-level summaries (e.g., the proportional hazards assumption) can become more fragile when joining data from different sources due to induced heterogeneity. Finally, it is shown that the baseline definition and the marginal estimator are candidates for additional estimand attributes in case the estimand framework is revised to account for observational study needs.
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.