Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40136297›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Quantitative Bias Analysis for Single-Arm Trials With External Control Arms.

Alind Gupta, Grace Hsu, Seamus Kent, Stephen J Duffield, Evie Merinopoulou, Alexandre Lockhart, Paul Arora, Joshua Ray, Samantha Wilkinson, Nicolas Scheuer and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. 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. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  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

14 authors.

Alind GuptaNow with Inka Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Grace HsuCytel, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Seamus KentErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Stephen J DuffieldNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.
Evie MerinopoulouCytel, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Alexandre LockhartCytel, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Paul AroraDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Joshua RayGlobal Access, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Samantha WilkinsonGlobal Access, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Nicolas ScheuerRoche Products Ltd, Welwyn Garden City, United Kingdom.
Sreeram V RamagopalanGlobal Access, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Rolf H H GroenwoldLeiden University Medical Centre, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Sanjay PopatRoyal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Miguel A HernánCAUSALab, Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Unmeasured confounding is a key concern for decision-makers when observational datasets are used to assemble external control arms (ECAs) for single-arm trials. Objective: To investigate the utility of quantitative bias analysis (QBA) for exploring the sensitivity to unmeasured confounding of nonrandomized analyses using ECAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study emulated 15 treatment comparisons using experimental arms from existing randomized trials in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) conducted after 2011 and ECAs derived from observational data. Participants were eligible individuals diagnosed with aNSCLC between January 1, 2011, and March 1, 2020. After adjustment for measured baseline confounders, a prespecified QBA was conducted to address potential bias by known unmeasured and mismeasured confounders. The QBA relied on a synthesis of external evidence from a targeted literature search, randomized trial data, and clinician input. Hazard ratios from the original randomized trials were compared with those from their emulation based on ECA analyses. Analyses were completed from February 2022 to October 2023. Exposure: Initiation of systemic therapies for aNSCLC. Main outcomes and measures: Hazard ratios for all-cause death. Results: Sample sizes varied from 52 to 830 depending on the treatment group. The mean difference in the log hazard ratio estimates when using the original control arm vs the ECA for each trial was 0.247 in unadjusted analyses (ratio of hazard ratios, 1.36), 0.139 when adjusted for measured confounders (ratio of hazard ratios, 1.22), and 0.098 when adding external adjustment for unmeasured and mismeasured confounders (ratio of hazard ratios, 1.17). Conclusions and Relevance: QBA was feasible and informative in ECA analyses in which residual confounding was expected to be the most important source of bias. These findings encourage further exploration of how QBA can help quantify the impact of bias in other settings and when using other data sources.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedBiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID40136297
PMCPMC11947839

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.