Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40980098›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in drug safety and regulation2023

External comparators and estimands.

Gerd Rippin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gerd RippinIQVIA, Biostatistics, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

estimandsexternal comparatorexternal comparator cohort studiesexternal comparator studiesexternally controlled Trialshistorical control studies

Identifiers

PMID40980098
PMCPMC12443115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.