ArticleBMJ open2026
Are study design characteristics in single-arm trials comparable with those of their objective performance criteria or performance goals? A scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSingle-arm trials (SATs) with objective performance criteria (OPCs) or performance goals (PGs) are increasingly used for regulatory approval of medical devices and other interventions. However, the comparability of study design characteristics between SAT and their external comparator sources remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the comparability of study design characteristics between SATs and their matched OPC/PG sources.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases-China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, CQVIP and SinoMed-were searched from inception to 30 April 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included SATs that used one or more OPCs or PGs as external comparators to evaluate safety and/or effectiveness endpoints and reported specific numerical values of OPCs or PGs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved records and extracted data using a standardised form. For each included SAT, we retrieved the cited OPC/PG sources and extracted study design characteristics data (age, sex, health conditions, outcome definitions and measurement time points) for comparison. Age and sex were compared using summary t-tests and χ² tests; health conditions were assessed by two clinicians based on eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics. Results were stratified by OPC versus PG.
resultsA total of 1243 records were identified, and 133 SATs were included. Most studies used PGs (84, 63.2%); 34 (25.6%) claimed to use OPCs, and 15 (11.3%) could not be classified. Of the 60 age comparisons available from 41 studies, 30 showed statistically significant differences; of the 82 sex comparisons available from 59 studies, 60 showed significant differences. Health conditions, outcome definitions and time points were assessed descriptively in a subset of studies, and discrepancies were also observed.
conclusionSuboptimal comparability of study design characteristics was observed between SATs and their OPC/PG sources, which might influence the treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to the comparability of study design characteristics in SATs with OPC/PGs may improve the validity of evidence.
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.