ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Risk of Bias Associated with Varying Sampling Strategies for External Comparator Cohorts for Single-Arm Trials: Insights from Aggressive Lymphoma.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Marketing authorizations for oncology drugs are often based on single-arm trials (SATs), and real-world data-based external comparator cohorts (ECCs) are increasingly explored to contextualize results. In retrospective studies, comparators may be identified by time of diagnosis but included based on time of relapse; such sampling strategies can introduce bias, potentially leading to erroneous efficacy conclusions. Simulated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cohorts were generated using published time-to-relapse and post-relapse survival distributions. Three ECC sampling strategies were evaluated: naïve (screening and inclusion periods coincide), delayed (inclusion period extends beyond screening), and displacement (screening and inclusion periods shifted relative to each other). Different sampling strategies caused significant changes in the time-to-relapse distribution in the ECC and, by proxy, the estimated 2-year post-relapse overall survival (22.5-52.2%). Naïve sampling consistently resulted in oversampling of early relapses, though bias was reduced with extended inclusion periods; in hypothetical trials, it produced inflated Type I errors (10.5-84.9%) despite α = 0.025. Delayed sampling reduced bias when the inclusion period was sufficiently extended to capture late relapses, yielding unbiased estimates under long delays (Type I error of 2.5% at a 6-year delay). Displacement sampling depended strongly on the degree of shift: moderate shifts minimized bias, whereas long displacements introduced substantial distortion (Type I error of 2.7% and 0.0% at displacements of 2 and 5, respectively). Real-world data-based ECCs in relapsed/refractory oncology are susceptible to selection bias from sampling strategies, particularly through distortions in time-to-relapse, leading to erroneous efficacy conclusions; similar bias may occur in non-oncology settings where time-to-treatment initiation is prognostic.
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.