ReviewJournal of comparative effectiveness research2026
Sieving for gold: external comparator studies to prioritize drugs for late-stage clinical trial.
Review in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External comparator (EC) studies can improve identification of compounds with the most promising performance in pre-pivotal single-arm trials (SAT). As SAT output lacks comparative insights, EC studies allow efficient contextualization of compound performance in early phases of drug development. Improving insights from pre-pivotal SATs allows more informed prioritization of compounds and investment choices and enables faster and more substantiated development of the most promising molecules to the benefit of patients. The extensive digitization of healthcare information routinely generated during patient treatment journeys makes EC studies using real-world data an attractive alternative to other approaches (such as systematic literature review and repurposed trial data). Using oncology as an illustration, this paper presents how real-world data EC studies can address some of the fundamental challenges the pharmaceutical sector faces in developing novel therapies, and especially those pertaining to emerging biopharma companies.
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.