Comparaisons à un groupe contrôle externe

30 Annexes

Sommaire > Comparaisons à un groupe contrôle externe > 30 Annexes

30 Annexes

[1] European Medicines Agency (EMA). ICH E10 Choice of control group in clinical trials - Scientific guideline | European Medicines Agency (EMA) 2001. Available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/ich-e10-choice-control-group-clinical-trials-scientific-guideline Accessed December 28, 2025.

[2] Rippin G, Largent J, Hoogendoorn WE, et al. External Comparator Cohort studies - clarification of terminology. Front. Drug Saf. Regul. 2024;3 10.3389/fdsfr.2023.1321894

[3] Pasculli G, Virgolin M, Myles P, et al. Synthetic Data in Healthcare and Drug Development: Definitions, Regulatory Frameworks, Issues. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 2025;14:840–52 10.1002/psp4.70021 [40193292]

[4] Concato J, Corrigan-Curay J. Real-World Evidence — Where Are We Now? New England Journal of Medicine 2022;386:1680–82 10.1056/NEJMp2200089 [35485775]

[5] Thorlund K, Dron L, Park JJH, et al. Synthetic and External Controls in Clinical Trials - A Primer for Researchers. Clin Epidemiol 2020;12:457–67 10.2147/CLEP.S242097 [32440224]

[6] FDA/CDER. Considerations for the Design and Conduct of Externally Controlled Trials for Drug and Biological Products ;

[7] Cucherat M, Laporte S, Delaitre O, et al. From single-arm studies to externally controlled studies. Methodological considerations and guidelines. Therapie 2020;75:21–27 10.1016/j.therap.2019.11.007 [32063399]

[8] Ou S-HI, Lin HM, Hong J-L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of mobocertinib and standard of care in patients with NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations: An indirect comparison. Lung Cancer 2023;179:107186 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107186 [37075617]

[9] Ludwig H, Terpos E, Boccadoro M, et al. Plitidepsin in combination with dexamethasone (ADMYRE trial) versus an external control arm of pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2026;105:26 10.1007/s00277-026-06811-w [41545603]

[10] Coelho T, Marques W, Dasgupta NR, et al. Eplontersen for Hereditary Transthyretin Amyloidosis With Polyneuropathy. JAMA 2023;330:1448–58 10.1001/jama.2023.18688 [37768671]

[11] Paganoni S, Macklin EA, Hendrix S, et al. Trial of Sodium Phenylbutyrate-Taurursodiol for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2020;383:919–30 10.1056/NEJMoa1916945 [32877582]

[12] Paganoni S, Quintana M, Sherman AV, et al. Analysis of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol survival effect in ALS using external controls. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2023;10:2297–304 10.1002/acn3.51915 [37807839]

[13] Burcu M, Dreyer NA, Franklin JM, et al. Real-world evidence to support regulatory decision-making for medicines: Considerations for external control arms. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2020;29:1228–35 10.1002/pds.4975 [32162381]

[14] EMA. Reflection paper on establishing efficacy based on single-arm trials submitted as pivotal evidence in a marketing authorisation.

[15] Collignon O, Schritz A, Senn SJ, et al. Clustered allocation as a way of understanding historical controls: Components of variation and regulatory considerations. Stat Methods Med Res 2020;29:1960–71 10.1177/0962280219880213 [31599194]

[16] Pocock SJ. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1976;29:175–88 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90044-8 [770493]

[17] Foucher Y. Boosting the performances of clinical trials from external data or related algorithms/models: conditions to respect ;

[18] J. De Keizer, S. Chevret, A. Fernandes, et al. Hybrid randomized clinical trials incorporating external controls: assumptions and related recommendations.

[19] Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. The Lancet 2002;359:57–61 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5 [11809203]

[20] Cucherat M, Demarcq O, Chassany O, et al. Methodological expectations for demonstration of health product effectiveness by observational studies. Therapie 2025;80:47–59 10.1016/j.therap.2024.10.062 [39694790]

[21] Abbasi AB, Curtis LH, Califf RM. The Promise of Real-World Data for Research - What Are We Missing? N Engl J Med 2025;393:318–21 10.1056/NEJMp2416479 [40689459]

[22] Dahly DL, Wilkinson J. Nonrandomized studies of interventions - complementary or just convenient? Fertility and Sterility 2025;0 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.019 [40685106]

[23] Fonarow GC. Randomization-There Is No Substitute. JAMA Cardiol 2016;1:633–35 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1792 [27439153]

[24] Gerstein HC, McMurray J, Holman RR. Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy. The Lancet 2019;393:210–11 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32840-x

[25] Dahly DL, Wilkinson J. Nonrandomized studies of interventions - complementary or just convenient? Fertility and sterility 2025;124:657–58 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.019 [40685106]

[26] Hernán MA. The C-Word: Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference From Observational Data. Am J Public Health 2018;108:616–19 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304337 [29565659]

[27] Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen and progestin use and the risk of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1996;335:453–61 10.1056/NEJM199608153350701 [8672166]

[28] Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2003;349:523–34 10.1056/NEJMoa030808 [12904517]

[29] Elm E von, Egger M. The scandal of poor epidemiological research. BMJ 2004;329:868–69 10.1136/bmj.329.7471.868 [15485939]

[30] Cummings JL, Atri A, Feldman HH, et al. evoke and evoke+: design of two large-scale, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies evaluating efficacy, safety, and tolerability of semaglutide in early-stage symptomatic Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2025;17:14 10.1186/s13195-024-01666-7 [39780249]

[31] Wang W, Wang Q, Qi X, et al. Associations of semaglutide with first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: Target trial emulation using nationwide real-world data in the US. Alzheimers Dement 2024;20:8661–72 10.1002/alz.14313 [39445596]

[32] Hemkens LG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JPA. Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials: meta-epidemiological survey. BMJ 2016;352:i493 10.1136/bmj.i493 [26858277]

[33] Soni PD, Hartman HE, Dess RT, et al. Comparison of Population-Based Observational Studies With Randomized Trials in Oncology. JCO 2019;37:1209–16 10.1200/JCO.18.01074 [30897037]

[34] Kumar A, Guss ZD, Courtney PT, et al. Evaluation of the Use of Cancer Registry Data for Comparative Effectiveness Research. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e2011985 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11985 [32729921]

[35] Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 2001;286:821–30 10.1001/jama.286.7.821 [11497536]

[36] Woolacott N, Corbett M, Jones-Diette J, et al. Methodological challenges for the evaluation of clinical effectiveness in the context of accelerated regulatory approval: an overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2017;90:108–18 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.002 [28709997]

[37] Heyard R, Held L, Schneeweiss S, et al. Design differences and variation in results between randomised trials and non-randomised emulations: meta-analysis of RCT-DUPLICATE data. BMJ Medicine 2024;3:e000709 10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000709 [38348308]

[38] CHMP. Abecma; INN-idecabtagene vicleucel ;

[39] CHMP. Abecma; INN-idecabtagene vicleucel ;

[40] Vickers AJ, Assel M, Dunn RL, et al. Guidelines for Reporting Observational Research in Urology: The Importance of Clear Reference to Causality. Eur Urol 2023 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.027 [37286459]

[41] Dahabreh IJ, Bibbins-Domingo K. Causal Inference About the Effects of Interventions From Observational Studies in Medical Journals. JAMA 2024;331:1845–53 10.1001/jama.2024.7741 [38722735]

[42] Wieseler B, Neyt M, Kaiser T, et al. Replacing RCTs with real world data for regulatory decision making: a self-fulfilling prophecy? BMJ 2023;380:e073100 10.1136/bmj-2022-073100 [36863730]

[43] FDA Eliminates Major Barrier to Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Application Reviews: FDA Mon, 12/15/2025 - 12:55.

[44] Vanier A, Fernandez J, Kelley S, et al. Rapid access to innovative medicinal products while ensuring relevant health technology assessment. Position of the French National Authority for Health. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2024;29:1–5 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112091 [36788020]

[45] Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products.

[46] Monnereau M, Delord J-P, Michiels S, et al. Acceptance of external control arms by HTA agencies: a review of oncology submissions in France, England, Germany and Norway from 2021 to 2023. British journal of cancer 2025 10.1038/s41416-025-03155-6 [40940536]

[47] McCord M. FDA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for Advanced Research and Development of Regulatory Science.

[48] Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Real-World Evidence: Considerations Regarding Non-Interventional Studies for Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry ;

[49] (Mon, 09/22/2025 - 19:08). FDA use of Real-World Evidence in Regulatory Decision Making. FDA, Mon, 09/22/2025 - 19:08. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/science-research/real-world-evidence/fda-use-real-world-evidence-regulatory-decision-making Accessed September 26, 2025.

[50] CBER C. Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff ;

[51] FDA/ CDER CBER OCE. Real-World Data: Assessing Electronic Health Records and Medical Claims Data to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products ;

[52] Stewart A. Real-World Data: Assessing Registries to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products ;

[53] Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Real-World Evidence: Considerations Regarding Non-Interventional Studies for Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry ;

[54] draft-reflection-paper-establishing-efficacy-based-single-arm-trials-submitted-pivotal-evidence-marketing-authorisation_en ;

[55] Abellan Andres Juan Jose, RWE tDG. Reflection paper on use of real-world data in noninterventional studies to generate real-world evidence for regulatory purposes ;

[56] European Medicines Agency. Concept paper on the revision of the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products and appendices.

[57] European Medicines Agency. Draft Concept Paper on the Development of a Reflection Paper on the Use of External Controls for Evidence Generation in Regulatory Decision-Making ;

[58] uk Cg. MHRA draft guideline on the use of external control arms based on real-world data to support regulatory decisions ;

[59] Weiss M. ICH_M14_Step4_Final_Guideline_2025_0905 ;

[60] Berger ML, Dreyer N, Anderson F, et al. Prospective observational studies to assess comparative effectiveness: the ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health 2012;15:217–30 10.1016/j.jval.2011.12.010 [22433752]

[61] Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part I. Value in Health 2009;12:1044–52 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00600.x [19793072]

[62] Berger ML, Sox H, Willke RJ, et al. Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2017;26:1033–39 10.1002/pds.4297 [28913966]

[63] Cox E, Martin BC, van Staa T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part II. Value Health 2009;12:1053–61 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00601.x [19744292]

[64] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE real-world evidence framework ;

[65] JCA. Methodological Guideline for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis: Direct and Indirect Comparisons ;

[66] JCA. Practical Guideline for Quantitative Evidence Synthesis: Direct and Indirect Comparisons ;

[67] Patel D, Grimson F, Mihaylova E, et al. Use of External Comparators for Health Technology Assessment Submissions Based on Single-Arm Trials. Value Health 2021;24:1118–25 10.1016/j.jval.2021.01.015 [34372977]

[68] Jaksa A, Louder A, Maksymiuk C, et al. A Comparison of Seven Oncology External Control Arm Case Studies: Critiques From Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Agencies. Value in Health 2022;25:1967–76 10.1016/j.jval.2022.05.016 [35760714]

[69] Wang X, Dormont F, Lorenzato C, et al. Current perspectives for external control arms in oncology clinical trials: Analysis of EMA approvals 2016-2021. Journal of Cancer Policy 2023;35:100403 10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100403 [36646208]

[70] Mangla KK, Kolovos S, Lisica A, et al. Acceptability of external control-arm use in nononcology health technology assessment submissions. J Comp Eff Res 2026;15:e250073 10.57264/cer-2025-0073 [41384576]

[71] Hwang TJ, Carpenter D, Lauffenburger JC, et al. Failure of Investigational Drugs in Late-Stage Clinical Development and Publication of Trial Results. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1826–33 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6008 [27723879]

[72] Wong CH, Siah KW, Lo AW. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2019;20:273–86 10.1093/biostatistics/kxx069 [29394327]

[73] Lefeuvre C, Antonio M de, Bouhour F, et al. Characteristics of Patients With Late-Onset Pompe Disease in France: Insights From the French Pompe Registry in 2022. Neurology 2023;101:e966-e977 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207547 [37419682]

[74] Broussais F, Bay JO, Boissel N, et al. DESCAR-T, le registre national des patients traités par CAR-T Cells. Bull Cancer 2021;108:S143-S154 10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.07.002 [34920797]

[75] Bai YG, Xu L, Duan XN, et al. The Breast Cancer Cohort Study in Chinese Women: research design and preliminary results of clinical multi-center cohort. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi 2020;41:2046–52 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20200507-00694 [33378815]

[76] Rahman R, Ventz S, Redd R, et al. Accessible Data Collections for Improved Decision Making in Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials. Clin Cancer Res 2023;29:2194–98 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3524 [36939557]

[77] Tennant PWG, Arnold KF, Ellison GTH, et al. Analyses of 'change scores'do not estimate causal effects in observational data. Int J Epidemiol 2022;51:1604–15 10.1093/ije/dyab050 [34100077]

[78] Jahanshahi M, Gregg K, Davis G, et al. The Use of External Controls in FDA Regulatory Decision Making. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2021;55:1019–35 10.1007/s43441-021-00302-y [34014439]

[79] Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, et al. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002;27:299–309 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x [12174032]

[80] Berger KI, Chien Y-H, Dubrovsky A, et al. Changes in forced vital capacity over ≤ 13 years among patients with late-onset Pompe disease treated with alglucosidase alfa: new modeling of real-world data from the Pompe Registry. J Neurol 2024 10.1007/s00415-024-12489-9 [38896264]

[81] Gault N, Castañeda-Sanabria J, Rycke Y de, et al. Self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology involving electronic healthcare databases: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:25 10.1186/s12874-016-0278-0 [28178924]

[82] Kawala CR, Ma X, Sykes J, et al. Real-world use of ivacaftor in Canada: A retrospective analysis using the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Registry. J Cyst Fibros 2021;20:1040–45 10.1016/j.jcf.2021.03.008 [33810992]

[83] San Sebastián M, Mosquera PA, Gustafsson PE. Do cardiovascular disease prevention programs in northern Sweden impact on population health? An interrupted time series analysis. BMC Public Health 2019;19:202 10.1186/s12889-019-6514-x [30770750]

[84] Wanner C, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Jovanovic A, et al. Cardiomyopathy and kidney function in agalsidase beta-treated female Fabry patients: a pre-treatment vs. post-treatment analysis. ESC Heart Fail 2020;7:825–34 10.1002/ehf2.12647 [32100468]

[85] Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Park C, Richardson DB. Universal Difference-in-Differences for Causal Inference in Epidemiology. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 2024;35:16–22 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001676 [38032801]

[86] Petersen I, Douglas I, Whitaker H. Self controlled case series methods: an alternative to standard epidemiological study designs. BMJ 2016;354:i4515 10.1136/bmj.i4515 [27618829]

[87] Desai RJ, Wang SV, Sreedhara SK, et al. Process guide for inferential studies using healthcare data from routine clinical practice to evaluate causal effects of drugs (PRINCIPLED): considerations from the FDA Sentinel Innovation Center. BMJ 2024;384:e076460 10.1136/bmj-2023-076460 [38346815]

[88] Kok JWTM de, van Bussel BCT, Schnabel R, et al. Table 0; documenting the steps to go from clinical database to research dataset. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2024;170:111342 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111342 [38574979]

[89] Gatto NM, Campbell UB, Rubinstein E, et al. The Structured Process to Identify Fit-For-Purpose Data: A Data Feasibility Assessment Framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2022;111:122–34 10.1002/cpt.2466 [34716990]

[90] Gatto NM, Vititoe SE, Rubinstein E, et al. A Structured Process to Identify Fit-for-Purpose Study Design and Data to Generate Valid and Transparent Real-World Evidence for Regulatory Uses. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2023;113:1235–39 10.1002/cpt.2883 [36871138]

[91] Hall GC, Sauer B, Bourke A, et al. Guidelines for good database selection and use in pharmacoepidemiology research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21:1–10 10.1002/pds.2229 [22069180]

[92] Du Ogier Terrail J, Klopfenstein Q, Li H, et al. FedECA: federated external control arms for causal inference with time-to-event data in distributed settings. Nat Commun 2025;16:7496 10.1038/s41467-025-62525-z [40804048]

[93] Arora A, Wagner SK, Carpenter R, et al. The urgent need to accelerate synthetic data privacy frameworks for medical research. The Lancet Digital Health 2025;7:e157-e160 10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00196-1 [39603900]

[94] Azizi Z, Zheng C, Mosquera L, et al. Can synthetic data be a proxy for real clinical trial data? A validation study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e043497 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043497 [33863713]

[95] Akiya I, Ishihara T, Yamamoto K. Comparison of Synthetic Data Generation Techniques for Control Group Survival Data in Oncology Clinical Trials: Simulation Study. JMIR Medical Informatics 2024;12:e55118 10.2196/55118 [38889082]

[96] Elvatun S, Knoors D, Brant S, et al. Synthetic data as external control arms in scarce single-arm clinical trials. PLOS Digit Health 2025;4:e0000581 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000581 [39847598]

[97] Koul A, Duran D, Hernandez-Boussard T. Synthetic data, synthetic trust: navigating data challenges in the digital revolution. The Lancet Digital Health 2025;7:100924 10.1016/j.landig.2025.100924 [41330822]

[98] Elm E von, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLOS Medicine 2007;4:e296 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 [17941714]

[99] FDA. CRL_NDA210862_20251104.

[100] Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1998;2:196–217 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 [15647155]

[101] Huebner M, Vach W, Le Cessie S, et al. Hidden analyses: a review of reporting practice and recommendations for more transparent reporting of initial data analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20:61 10.1186/s12874-020-00942-y [32169053]

[102] Patel CJ, Burford B, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of vibration of effects due to model specification can demonstrate the instability of observational associations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015;68:1046–58 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.029 [26279400]

[103] Hiemstra B, Keus F, Wetterslev J, et al. DEBATE-statistical analysis plans for observational studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:233 10.1186/s12874-019-0879-5 [31818263]

[104] Keele L, Grieve R. So Many Choices: A Guide to Selecting Among Methods to Adjust for Observed Confounders. Stat Med 2025;44:e10336 10.1002/sim.10336 [39947224]

[105] Wang SV, Pottegård A, Crown W, et al. HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of Hypothesis Evaluating Real-World Evidence Studies on Treatment Effects: A Good Practices Report of a Joint ISPE/ISPOR Task Force. Value in Health 2022;25:1663–72 10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.001 [36241338]

[106] Castelo-Branco L, Pellat A, Martins-Branco D, et al. ESMO Guidance for Reporting Oncology real-World evidence (GROW). Annals of Oncology 2023;34:1097–112 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.001 [37848160]

[107] Berlin JA, Fihn SD. Encouraging the Registration of Observational Studies. JAMA Netw Open 2025;8:e2524181 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.24181 [40711795]

[108] Loder E, Groves T, MacAuley D. Registration of observational studies. BMJ 2010;340:c950 10.1136/bmj.c950 [20167643]

[109] Langan SM, Schmidt SA, Wing K, et al. The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology (RECORD-PE). BMJ 2018;363:k3532 10.1136/bmj.k3532 [30429167]

[110] Wang SV, Pinheiro S, Hua W, et al. STaRT-RWE: structured template for planning and reporting on the implementation of real world evidence studies. BMJ 2021;372:m4856 10.1136/bmj.m4856 [33436424]

[111] Wang SV, Schneeweiss S. Data Checks Before Registering Study Protocols for Health Care Database Analyses. JAMA 2024;331:1445–46 10.1001/jama.2024.2988 [38587830]

[112] Hernán MA. Causal Inference. What if.

[113] Pearl J. Causal Inference in Statistics.

[114] Hernán MA. A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:265–71 10.1136/jech.2002.006361 [15026432]

[115] Goetghebeur E, Le Cessie S, Stavola B de, et al. Formulating causal questions and principled statistical answers. Stat Med 2020;39:4922–48 10.1002/sim.8741 [32964526]

[116] Humphreys ABC, Matthews AA, Young JC, et al. The definition of treatment assignment in observational emulations of target trials - an empirical examination in the Swedish Primary Care Cardiovascular Database. Ann Epidemiol 2025;108:56–62 10.1016/j.annepidem.2025.06.003 [40506003]

[117] Fang Y, Zhong S. The Targeted Virtual Control Approach for Single-Arm Clinical Trials with External Controls. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 2023;15:802–11 10.1080/19466315.2022.2154260

[118] David M. Phillippo, A. E. Ades, Sofia Dias, Stephen Palmer, Keith R. Abrams, Nicky J. Welton. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE 2016.

[119] Weckstein AR, Wang SV, Wyss R, et al. Scalable confounding adjustment in real-world evidence: benchmarking data-adaptive and investigator-specified strategies in a large-scale trial emulation study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2025 10.1093/jamia/ocaf204 [41338229]

[120] Shrier I, Platt RW. Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:70 10.1186/1471-2288-8-70 [18973665]

[121] Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 1999;10:37–48 ; [9888278]

[122] Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 1999;10:37–48 ; [9888278]

[123] Lipsky AM, Greenland S. Causal Directed Acyclic Graphs. JAMA 2022;327:1083–84 10.1001/jama.2022.1816 [35226050]

[124] Digitale JC, Martin JN, Glymour MM. Tutorial on directed acyclic graphs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2022;142:264–67 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.001 [34371103]

[125] Williamson EJ, Aitken Z, Lawrie J, et al. Introduction to causal diagrams for confounder selection. Respirology 2014;19:303–11 10.1111/resp.12238 [24447391]

[126] Biostatistics in Biopharmaceutical Research and Development: Springer, Cham 2024.

[127] Eriksson JW, Bodegard J, Nathanson D, et al. Sulphonylurea compared to DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin carries increased risk of severe hypoglycemia, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2016;117:39–47 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.055 [27329021]

[128] Tools | Cochrane Prognosis 2025. Available at: https://methods.cochrane.org/prognosis/tools Accessed December 23, 2025.

[129] Damen JAA, Moons KGM, van Smeden M, et al. How to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies. Clin Microbiol Infect 2023;29:434–40 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.07.019 [35934199]

[130] Riley RD, Moons KGM, Snell KIE, et al. A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies. BMJ 2019;364:k4597 10.1136/bmj.k4597 [30700442]

[131] Hayden JA, Côté P, Bombardier C. Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann. Intern. Med. 2006;144:427–37 10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 [16549855]

[132] Henry ML, O'Connell NE, Riley RD, et al. AMSTAR-PF: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies. BMJ 2025;391:e085718 10.1136/bmj-2025-085718 [41429459]

[133] Pufulete M, Mahadevan K, Johnson TW, et al. Confounders and co-interventions identified in non-randomized studies of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2022;148:115–23 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.018 [35346782]

[134] Hogervorst MA, Soman KV, Gardarsdottir H, et al. Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials With External Controls From Real-World Data: A Systematic Literature Review and Comparison With European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Value in Health 2025;28:161–74 10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.002 [39241824]

[135] Loiseau N, Trichelair P, He M, et al. External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022;22:335 10.1186/s12874-022-01799-z [36577946]

[136] Holt M, Kelly RJ, Fermont JM, et al. Effectiveness of Iptacopan Versus C5 Inhibitors in Complement Inhibitor-Naive Patients With Paroxysmal Nocturnal Haemoglobinuria. EJHaem 2025;6:e270055 10.1002/jha2.70055 [40395624]

[137] Privitera S, Sedghamiz H, Hartenstein A, et al. An evolutionary algorithm for the direct optimization of covariate balance between nonrandomized populations. Pharm Stat 2024;23:288–307 10.1002/pst.2352 [38111126]

[138] Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects. Biometrika 1983;70:41 10.2307/2335942

[139] Shiba K, Kawahara T. Using Propensity Scores for Causal Inference: Pitfalls and Tips. Journal of epidemiology 2021;31:457–63 10.2188/jea.JE20210145 [34121051]

[140] Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011;46:399–424 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 [21818162]

[141] Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, et al. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:1149–56 10.1093/aje/kwj149 [16624967]

[142] Andrew BY, Alan Brookhart M, Pearse R, et al. Propensity score methods in observational research: brief review and guide for authors. Br J Anaesth 2023;131:805–09 10.1016/j.bja.2023.06.054 [37481434]

[143] Simoneau G, Pellegrini F, Debray TP, et al. Recommendations for the use of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis research. Mult Scler 2022;28:1467–80 10.1177/13524585221085733 [35387508]

[144] Rizk JG. When and why to use overlap weighting: clarifying its role, assumptions, and estimand in real-world studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2025;187:111942 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111942 [40850393]

[145] Liu Y, Wang Y, Gao Y, et al. A tutorial for propensity score weighting methods under violations of the positivity assumption 2025.

[146] Lee J, Lee H, Yoon D, et al. Lazertinib versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer after Failing EGFR-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: A Real-World External Comparator Study. Cancers (Basel) 2024;16 10.3390/cancers16122169 [38927875]

[147] Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009;28:3083–107 10.1002/sim.3697 [19757444]

[148] Wang SV, Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA. Optimal matching ratios in drug safety surveillance. Epidemiology 2014;25:772–73 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000148 [25076153]

[149] Rassen JA, Shelat AA, Myers J, et al. One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21 Suppl 2:69–80 10.1002/pds.3263 [22552982]

[150] Austin PC. Statistical criteria for selecting the optimal number of untreated subjects matched to each treated subject when using many-to-one matching on the propensity score. American journal of epidemiology 2010;172:1092–97 10.1093/aje/kwq224 [20802241]

[151] Desai RJ, Franklin JM. Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners. BMJ 2019;367:l5657 10.1136/bmj.l5657 [31645336]

[152] Brookhart MA, Wyss R, Layton JB, et al. Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013;6:604–11 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000359 [24021692]

[153] Källberg D, Waernbaum I. Large Sample Properties of Entropy Balancing Estimators of Average Causal Effects. Econometrics and Statistics 2023 10.1016/j.ecosta.2023.11.004

[154] Phillippo DM, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Equivalence of entropy balancing and the method of moments for matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Research synthesis methods 2020;11:568–72 10.1002/jrsm.1416 [32395870]

[155] Hainmueller J. Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies. Polit. anal. 2012;20:25–46 10.1093/pan/mpr025

[156] Rolfo C, Hess LM, Jen M-H, et al. External control cohorts for the single-arm LIBRETTO-001 trial of selpercatinib in RET+ non-small-cell lung cancer. ESMO Open 2022;7:100551 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100551 [35930972]

[157] Nguyen T-L, Collins GS, Spence J, et al. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:78 10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0 [28454568]

[158] Shinozaki T, Nojima M. Misuse of Regression Adjustment for Additional Confounders Following Insufficient Propensity Score Balancing. Epidemiology 2019;30:541–48 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001023 [31166216]

[159] Moccia C, Moirano G, Popovic M, et al. Machine learning in causal inference for epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2024;39:1097–108 10.1007/s10654-024-01173-x [39535572]

[160] Bi Q, Goodman KE, Kaminsky J, et al. What is Machine Learning? A Primer for the Epidemiologist. American journal of epidemiology 2019;188:2222–39 10.1093/aje/kwz189 [31509183]

[161] Schuler MS, Rose S. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Causal Inference in Observational Studies. American journal of epidemiology 2017;185:65–73 10.1093/aje/kww165 [27941068]

[162] Talbot D, Diop A, Mésidor M, et al. Guidelines and Best Practices for the Use of Targeted Maximum Likelihood and Machine Learning When Estimating Causal Effects of Exposures on Time-To-Event Outcomes. Stat Med 2025;44:e70034 10.1002/sim.70034 [40079648]

[163] van der Laan MJ. Targeted maximum likelihood based causal inference: Part I. Int J Biostat 2010;6:Article 2 10.2202/1557-4679.1211 [21969992]

[164] Groenwold RHH, Hak E, Hoes AW. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009;62:22–28 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.011 [18619797]

[165] Groenwold RHH. Falsification end points for observational studies. JAMA 2013;309:1769–70 10.1001/jama.2013.3089

[166] Lipsitch M, Tchetgen ET, Cohen T. Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies. Epidemiology 2010;21:383–88 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61eeb

[167] Prasad V, Jena AB. Prespecified falsification end points: can they validate true observational associations? JAMA 2013;309:241–42 10.1001/jama.2012.96867

[168] Gray C, Ralphs E, Fox MP, et al. Use of quantitative bias analysis to evaluate single-arm trials with real-world data external controls. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2024;33:e5796 10.1002/pds.5796 [38680093]

[169] Gupta A, Hsu G, Kent S, et al. Quantitative Bias Analysis for Single-Arm Trials With External Control Arms. JAMA Netw Open 2025;8:e252152 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.2152 [40136297]

[170] Lash TL, Fox MP, Cooney D, et al. Quantitative Bias Analysis in Regulatory Settings. Am J Public Health 2016;106:1227–30 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303199 [27196652]

[171] Leahy TP, Durand-Zaleski I, Sampietro-Colom L, et al. The role of quantitative bias analysis for nonrandomized comparisons in health technology assessment: recommendations from an expert workshop. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2023;39:e68 10.1017/S0266462323002702 [37981828]

[172] Thorlund K, Duffield S, Popat S, et al. Quantitative bias analysis for external control arms using real-world data in clinical trials: a primer for clinical researchers. J Comp Eff Res 2024:e230147 10.57264/cer-2023-0147 [38205741]

[173] Yin X, Stuart E, Burcu M, et al. Assessing the impact of unmeasured confounding in external control arms via tipping point analyses. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024;42:e23065-e23065 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.e23065

[174] Risk of bias tools - ROBINS-I V2 tool 2025. Available at: https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robins-i-v2 Accessed November 02, 2025.

[175] Popat S, Liu SV, Scheuer N, et al. Addressing challenges with real-world synthetic control arms to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of Pralsetinib in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Commun 2022;13:3500 10.1038/s41467-022-30908-1 [35715405]

[176] Rippin G, Sanz H, Hoogendoorn WE, et al. Examining the Effect of Missing Data and Unmeasured Confounding on External Comparator Studies: Case Studies and Simulations. Drug Saf 2024;47:1245–63 10.1007/s40264-024-01467-9 [39102176]

[177] Soutar S, Macdougall A, Wallis J, et al. Flexible quantitative bias analysis for unmeasured confounding in subject-level indirect treatment comparisons with proportional hazards violation. BMC Med Res Methodol 2025;25:131 10.1186/s12874-025-02551-z [40348970]

[178] Gaster T, Eggertsen CM, Støvring H, et al. Quantifying the impact of unmeasured confounding in observational studies with the E value. bmjmed 2023;2:e000366 10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000366 [37159620]

[179] VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann. Intern. Med. 2017;167:268–74 10.7326/M16-2607 [28693043]

[180] Faillie J-L, Suissa S. Le biais de temps immortel dans les études pharmacoépidémiologiques définition, solutions et exemples. Therapie 2015;70:259–63 10.2515/therapie/2014207 [25487848]

[181] Yadav K, Lewis RJ. Immortal Time Bias in Observational Studies. JAMA 2021;325:686–87 10.1001/jama.2020.9151 [33591334]

[182] Yoshida K, Solomon DH, Kim SC. Active-comparator design and new-user design in observational studies. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2015;11:437–41 10.1038/nrrheum.2015.30 [25800216]

[183] Lund JL, Richardson DB, Stürmer T. The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: historical foundations and contemporary application. Current epidemiology reports 2015;2:221–28 10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5 [26954351]

[184] Stürmer T, Wang T. Active Comparator New User Cohort Studies and Matching. JAMA Intern Med 2026;186:122 10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.5792

[185] Hernán MA, Sauer BC, Hernández-Díaz S, et al. Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2016;79:70–75 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014 [27237061]

[186] Suissa S. Single-arm Trials with Historical Controls: Study Designs to Avoid Time-related Biases. Epidemiology 2021;32:94–100 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001267 [33009252]

[187] Hernán MA. How to estimate the effect of treatment duration on survival outcomes using observational data. BMJ 2018;360:k182 10.1136/bmj.k182 [29419381]

[188] Antunes L, Rippin G, Ralphs E, et al. Choosing an Index Date for Untreated Patients in External Comparator Studies. Drug Saf 2025:1–12 10.1007/s40264-025-01613-x [41021206]

[189] Backenroth D. How to choose a time zero for patients in external control arms. Pharm Stat 2021;20:783–92 10.1002/pst.2107 [33655598]

[190] Cui Z, Khanal M, Chen Y, et al. MSR105 Proportional Randomization Method to Identify Index Line of Therapy in Externally Controlled Trials. Value in Health 2024;27:S280 10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.2420

[191] Hatswell AJ, Deighton K, Snider JT, et al. Approaches to Selecting "Time Zero" in External Control Arms with Multiple Potential Entry Points: A Simulation Study of 8 Approaches. Med Decis Making 2022;42:893–905 10.1177/0272989X221096070 [35514320]

[192] van Le H, Benedetti M de, Yue L, et al. Effect of designations of index date in externally controlled trials: an empirical example. Epidemiologic Methods 2024;13 10.1515/em-2023-0041

[193] Orbach D, Carton M, Khadir SK, et al. Therapeutic benefit of larotrectinib over the historical standard of care in patients with locally advanced or metastatic infantile fibrosarcoma (EPI VITRAKVI study). ESMO Open 2024;9:103006 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103006 [38657345]

[194] van der Sluis, Inge M, Lorenzo P de, Kotecha RS, et al. Blinatumomab Added to Chemotherapy in Infant Lymphoblastic Leukemia. N Engl J Med 2023;388:1572–81 10.1056/NEJMoa2214171 [37099340]

[195] FDA. eflornithine (brand name Iwilfin) for pediatric high-risk neuroblastoma.

[196] Willems S, Schat A, van Noorden MS, et al. Correcting for dependent censoring in routine outcome monitoring data by applying the inverse probability censoring weighted estimator. Stat Methods Med Res 2018;27:323–35 10.1177/0962280216628900 [26988930]

[197] Fu EL, Harhay MO, Schneeweiss S, et al. Starting right: aligning eligibility and treatment assignment at time zero when emulating a target trial. BMJ 2026;392:e084909 10.1136/bmj-2025-084909 [41526041]

[198] Danaei G, Rodríguez LAG, Cantero OF, et al. Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: an emulation of randomised trials of statins and primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Stat Methods Med Res 2013;22:70–96 10.1177/0962280211403603 [22016461]

[199] Dickerman BA, García-Albéniz X, Logan RW, et al. Avoidable flaws in observational analyses: an application to statins and cancer. Nature medicine 2019;25:1601–06 10.1038/s41591-019-0597-x [31591592]

[200] Ren Y, Jia Y, Liu L, et al. Design and Implementation of Observational Studies Emulating a Target Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2026;9:e2558262 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.58262 [41712213]

[201] Zhou Z, Rahme E, Abrahamowicz M, et al. Survival bias associated with time-to-treatment initiation in drug effectiveness evaluation: a comparison of methods. Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:1016–23 10.1093/aje/kwi307 [16192344]

[202] García-Albéniz X, Hsu J, Hernán MA. The value of explicitly emulating a target trial when using real world evidence: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Epidemiol 2017;32:495–500 10.1007/s10654-017-0287-2 [28748498]

[203] Christiaens A, Simon-Tillaux N, Thompson W, et al. Impact of deintensifying hypoglycaemic drugs in older adults with type 2 diabetes: protocol for an emulation of a target trial. BMJ Open 2023;13:e073081 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073081 [37984943]

[204] Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Brown JS, et al. Graphical Depiction of Longitudinal Study Designs in Health Care Databases. Ann. Intern. Med. 2019;170:398–406 10.7326/M18-3079 [30856654]

[205] Nourredine M, Gavoille A, Lepage C, et al. Accounting for Misclassification of Binary Outcomes in External Control Arm Studies for Unanchored Indirect Comparisons: Simulations and Applied Example. Stat Med 2025;44:e70236 10.1002/sim.70236 [40930536]

[206] Greenland S. The effect of misclassification in the presence of covariates. Am J Epidemiol 1980;112:564–69 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113025 [7424903]

[207] Sheffield KM, Bowman L, Smith DM, et al. Development and validation of a claims-based approach to proxy ECOG performance status across ten tumor groups. J Comp Eff Res 2018;7:193–208 10.2217/cer-2017-0040 [29533694]

[208] Graham S, Graham J, O'Rourke J, et al. Machine Learning Approach to Estimating ECOG PS for a Multiple-Myeloma Cohort from Real World Data. Blood 2023;142:4700 10.1182/blood-2023-182252

[209] Salloum RG, Smith TJ, Jensen GA, et al. Using claims-based measures to predict performance status score in patients with lung cancer. Cancer 2011;117:1038–48 10.1002/cncr.25677 [20957722]

[210] MHRA guidance on the use of real-world data in clinical studies to support regulatory decisions - GOV.UK ;

[211] Hallway A, Isenberg E, Howard R, et al. Medicare Coding Changes and Reported Hernia Size. The Journal of the American Medical Association 2025 10.1001/jama.2024.26829

[212] Gibson AD, White NM, Collins GS, et al. Evidence of Unreliable Data and Poor Data Provenance in Clinical Prediction Model Research and Clinical Practice 2026.

[213] European Medicines Agency. Data Quality Framework for EU medicines regulation: application to Real-World Data ;

[214] Fox MP, Lash TL, Bodnar LM. Common misconceptions about validation studies. Int J Epidemiol 2020;49:1392–96 10.1093/ije/dyaa090 [32617564]

[215] Schelde AB, Kornholt J. Validation studies in epidemiologic research: estimation of the positive predictive value. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2021;137:262–64 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.009 [34022395]

[216] Wang Y-W, Liu C-C, Chen H-C, et al. Assessing the Validity of Claims-Based Diagnostic Codes for Psychotic and Affective Disorders and the Influence of the Coding Transition from the ICD-9 to the ICD-10 in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Clin Epidemiol 2025;17:635–45 10.2147/CLEP.S522618 [40661787]

[217] Ando T, Ooba N, Mochizuki M, et al. Positive predictive value of ICD-10 codes for acute myocardial infarction in Japan: a validation study at a single center. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18:895 10.1186/s12913-018-3727-0 [30477501]

[218] Fujihara K, Yamada-Harada M, Matsubayashi Y, et al. Accuracy of Japanese claims data in identifying diabetes-related complications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2021;30:594–601 10.1002/pds.5213 [33629363]

[219] Lee H, Sparks JA, Lee SB, et al. Validation of serostatus of rheumatoid arthritis using ICD-10 codes in administrative claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2023;32:586–91 10.1002/pds.5597 [36728737]

[220] Paik JM, Patorno E, Zhuo M, et al. Accuracy of identifying diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic kidney disease in administrative claims data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2022;31:467–75 10.1002/pds.5398 [34908211]

[221] Roy L, Zappitelli M, White-Guay B, et al. Agreement Between Administrative Database and Medical Chart Review for the Prediction of Chronic Kidney Disease G category. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2020;7:2054358120959908 10.1177/2054358120959908 [33101698]

[222] Thurin NH, Bosco-Levy P, Blin P, et al. Intra-database validation of case-identifying algorithms using reconstituted electronic health records from healthcare claims data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021;21:95 10.1186/s12874-021-01285-y [33933001]

[223] Lee CD, Carnahan RM, McPheeters ML. A systematic review of validated methods for identifying Bell's palsy using administrative or claims data. Vaccine 2013;31 Suppl 10:K7-11 10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.04.040 [24331076]

[224] Abraha I, Montedori A, Serraino D, et al. Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019264 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019264 [30037859]

[225] Lanes S, Beachler DC. Validation to correct for outcome misclassification bias. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2023;32:700–03 10.1002/pds.5601 [36751117]

[226] European Medicines Agency. Data Quality Framework for EU medicines regulation: application to Real-World Data ;

[227] Estevez M, Singh N, Dyson L, et al. Ensuring Reliability of Curated EHR-Derived Data: The Validation of Accuracy for LLM/ML-Extracted Information and Data (VALID) Framework 2025.

[228] Velummailum RR, McKibbon C, Brenner DR, et al. Data Challenges for Externally Controlled Trials: Viewpoint. J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e43484 10.2196/43484 [37018021]

[229] Mhatre SK, Machado RJM, Ton TGN, et al. Real-World Progression-Free Survival as an Endpoint in Lung Cancer: Replicating Atezolizumab and Docetaxel Arms of the OAK Trial Using Real-World Data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2023;114:1313–22 10.1002/cpt.3045 [37696652]

[230] Ackerman B, Gan RW, Meyer CS, et al. Measurement error and bias in real-world oncology endpoints when constructing external control arms. Front. Drug Saf. Regul. 2024;4 10.3389/fdsfr.2024.1423493

[231] Zeng L, Cook RJ, Wen L, et al. Bias in progression-free survival analysis due to intermittent assessment of progression. Stat Med 2015;34:3181–93 10.1002/sim.6529 [26011411]

[232] Zhu J, Tang RS. A proper statistical inference framework to compare clinical trial and real-world progression-free survival data. Stat Med 2022;41:5738–52 10.1002/sim.9590 [36199170]

[233] Edwards JK, Cole SR, Zivich PN, et al. Risk functions with outcome measurement error. Biostatistics 2026;27 10.1093/biostatistics/kxaf052 [41555577]

[234] Cren P-Y, Leguillette C, Craynest F, et al. Estimating overall survival by combining administrative and hospital death data: a methodological challenge. Eur J Epidemiol 2025:1–11 10.1007/s10654-025-01278-x [41118097]

[235] Hsu W-C, Crowley A, Parzynski CS. The impact of different censoring methods for analyzing survival using real-world data with linked mortality information: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2024;24:203 10.1186/s12874-024-02313-3 [39272007]

[236] Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 [27733354]

[237] Bykov K, Jaksa A, Lund JL, et al. APPRAISE: A Tool for Appraising Potential for Bias in Real-world Evidence Studies on Medication Effectiveness or Safety. Value Health 2025 10.1016/j.jval.2025.07.024 [40774597]

[238] D'Andrea E, Vinals L, Patorno E, et al. How well can we assess the validity of non-randomised studies of medications? A systematic review of assessment tools. BMJ Open 2021;11:e043961 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043961 [33762237]

[239] Hernán MA. Methods of Public Health Research - Strengthening Causal Inference from Observational Data. The New England journal of medicine 2021 10.1056/NEJMp2113319 [34596980]

[240] Hernán MA, Dahabreh IJ, Dickerman BA, et al. The Target Trial Framework for Causal Inference From Observational Data: Why and When Is It Helpful? Ann Intern Med 2025;178:402–07 10.7326/ANNALS-24-01871 [39961105]

[241] Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. American journal of epidemiology 2016;183:758–64 10.1093/aje/kwv254 [26994063]

[242] Hernán MA, Wang W, Leaf DE. Target Trial Emulation: A Framework for Causal Inference From Observational Data. JAMA 2022;328:2446–47 10.1001/jama.2022.21383 [36508210]

[243] Arnold K, Antunes L, Coles B, et al. Application of the target trial emulation framework to external comparator studies. Front. Drug Saf. Regul. 2024;4 10.3389/fdsfr.2024.1380568

[244] Tran V-T, Porcher R, Perrodeau E, et al. Practical elements to consider when emulating a target trial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2026;0:112205 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112205

[245] Cashin AG, Hansford HJ, Hernán MA, et al. Transparent Reporting of Observational Studies Emulating a Target Trial-The TARGET Statement. JAMA 2025 10.1001/jama.2025.13350 [40899949]

[246] Wang SV, Schneeweiss S, Franklin JM, et al. Emulation of Randomized Clinical Trials With Nonrandomized Database Analyses: Results of 32 Clinical Trials. JAMA 2023;329:1376–85 10.1001/jama.2023.4221 [37097356]

[247] Simon-Tillaux N, Martin GL, Hajage D, et al. Conducting observational analyses with the target trial emulation approach: a methodological systematic review. BMJ Open 2024;14:e086595 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086595 [39532374]

[248] Zhao SS, Lyu H, Solomon DH, et al. Improving rheumatoid arthritis comparative effectiveness research through causal inference principles: systematic review using a target trial emulation framework. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:883–90 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217200 [32381560]

[249] Scola G, Chis Ster A, Bean D, et al. Implementation of the trial emulation approach in medical research: a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023;23:186 10.1186/s12874-023-02000-9 [37587484]

[250] Zuo H, Yu L, Campbell SM, et al. The implementation of target trial emulation for causal inference: a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2023;162:29–37 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.003 [37562726]

[251] Merola D, Campbell U, Lenis D, et al. Calibrating Observational Health Record Data Against a Randomized Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2024;7:e2436535 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.36535 [39348118]

[252] Dahabreh IJ, Robins JM, Hernán MA. Benchmarking Observational Methods by Comparing Randomized Trials and Their Emulations. Epidemiology 2020;31:614–19 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001231 [32740470]

[253] Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, DuMouchel W, et al. Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values. Stat Med 2014;33:209–18 10.1002/sim.5925 [23900808]

[254] Schuemie MJ, Hripcsak G, Ryan PB, et al. Robust empirical calibration of p-values using observational data. Stat Med 2016;35:3883–88 10.1002/sim.6977 [27592566]

[255] Schuemie MJ, Hripcsak G, Ryan PB, et al. Empirical confidence interval calibration for population-level effect estimation studies in observational healthcare data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018;115:2571–77 10.1073/pnas.1708282114 [29531023]

[256] Wang SV, Russo M, Glynn RJ, et al. A Benchmark, Expand, and Calibration (BenchExCal) Trial Emulation Approach for Using Real-World Evidence to Support Indication Expansions: Design and Process for a Planned Empirical Evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2025;117:1820–28 10.1002/cpt.3621 [40067205]

[257] Haine D. Quantitative Bias Analysis for Epidemiologic Data 2025. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/episensr/vignettes/episensr.html Accessed January 25, 2026.

[258] Brown JP, Hunnicutt JN, Ali MS, et al. Quantifying possible bias in clinical and epidemiological studies with quantitative bias analysis: common approaches and limitations. BMJ 2024;385:e076365 10.1136/bmj-2023-076365 [38565248]

[259] Oganisian A. Stress-Testing Assumptions: A Guide to Bayesian Sensitivity Analyses in Causal Inference 2026.

[260] Hernán MA. Causal analyses of existing databases: no power calculations required. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2022;144:203–05 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.028 [34461211]

[261] Nagendran M, Pereira TV, Kiew G, et al. Very large treatment effects in randomised trials as an empirical marker to indicate whether subsequent trials are necessary: meta-epidemiological assessment. BMJ 2016;355:i5432 10.1136/bmj.i5432 [27789483]

[262] Liu J, Yao M, Wang M, et al. Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Externally Controlled Trials. JAMA Netw Open 2025;8:e2530277 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.30277 [40906478]

[263] Silva P, Janjan N, Ramos KS, et al. External control arms: COVID-19 reveals the merits of using real world evidence in real-time for clinical and public health investigations. Frontiers in Medicine 2023;10:1198088 10.3389/fmed.2023.1198088 [37484840]

[264] Farah E, Kenney M, Warkentin MT, et al. Examining external control arms in oncology: A scoping review of applications to date. Cancer Medicine 2024;13:e7447 10.1002/cam4.7447 [38984669]

[265] Hermans SJF, van der Maas NG, van Norden Y, et al. Externally Controlled Studies Using Real-World Data in Patients With Hematological Cancers: A Systematic Review. JAMA Oncol 2024;10:1426–36 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.3466 [39207765]

[266] Hogervorst MA, Soman KV, Gardarsdottir H, et al. Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials With External Controls From Real-World Data: A Systematic Literature Review and Comparison With European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice. Value Health 2025;28:161–74 10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.002 [39241824]

[267] Vaghela S, Tanni KA, Banerjee G, et al. A systematic review of real-world evidence (RWE) supportive of new drug and biologic license application approvals in rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2024;19:117 10.1186/s13023-024-03111-2 [38475874]

[268] Zayadi A, Edge R, Parker CE, et al. Use of external control arms in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2023;13:e076677 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076677 [38070932]

[269] Appiah K, Rizzo M, Sarri G, et al. Justifying the source of external comparators in single-arm oncology health technology submissions: a review of NICE and PBAC assessments. J Comp Eff Res 2024;13:e230140 10.57264/cer-2023-0140 [38174576]

[270] Carrigan G, Whipple S, Capra WB, et al. Using Electronic Health Records to Derive Control Arms for Early Phase Single-Arm Lung Cancer Trials: Proof-of-Concept in Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020;107:369–77 10.1002/cpt.1586 [31350853]

[271] Larrouquere L, Giai J, Cracowski J-L, et al. Externally Controlled Trials: Are We There Yet? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020;108:918–19 10.1002/cpt.1881 [32542679]

[272] Ventz S, Khozin S, Louv B, et al. The design and evaluation of hybrid controlled trials that leverage external data and randomization. Nat Commun 2022;13:5783 10.1038/s41467-022-33192-1 [36184621]

[273] Ventz S, Lai A, Cloughesy TF, et al. Design and Evaluation of an External Control Arm Using Prior Clinical Trials and Real-World Data. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:4993–5001 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0820 [31175098]

[274] Ganame S, Walter T, Durand A, et al. Proof of concept and design of an externally controlled trial for patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas based on the randomized phase II BEVANEC trial. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England 1990) 2025;225:115450 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115450 [40340189]

[275] Signorovitch J, Moshyk A, Zhao J, et al. Overall survival in the real-world and clinical trials: a case study validating external controls in advanced melanoma. Future Oncol 2022;18:1321–31 10.2217/fon-2021-1054 [35048743]

[276] Jemielita T, Widman L, Fox C, et al. Replication of Oncology Randomized Trial Results using Swedish Registry Real World-Data: A Feasibility Study. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2021;110:1613–21 10.1002/cpt.2424 [34549809]

[277] Bahmane S, Harbron C, Incerti D, et al. Meta-Analysis of Bias in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer External Control Arms That Use Real-World Progression-Free Survival as the End Point. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2025;9:e2500198 10.1200/CCI-25-00198 [41270248]

[278] Swaminathan AC, Snyder LD, Hong H, et al. External Control Arms in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Using Clinical Trial and Real-World Data Sources. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 2023;208:579–88 10.1164/rccm.202210-1947OC [37384378]

[279] Schröder C, Lawrance M, Li C, et al. Building External Control Arms From Patient-Level Electronic Health Record Data to Replicate the Randomized IMblaze370 Control Arm in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2021;5:450–58 10.1200/CCI.20.00149 [33891473]

[280] Ton TGN, Pal N, Trinh H, et al. Replication of Overall Survival, Progression-Free Survival, and Overall Response in Chemotherapy Arms of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Trials Using Real-World Data. Clin Cancer Res 2022;28:2844–53 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0471 [35511917]

[281] Tan K, Bryan J, Segal B, et al. Emulating Control Arms for Cancer Clinical Trials Using External Cohorts Created From Electronic Health Record-Derived Real-World Data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2022;111:168–78 10.1002/cpt.2351 [34197637]

[282] Abrahami D, Pradhan R, Yin H, et al. Use of Real-World Data to Emulate a Clinical Trial and Support Regulatory Decision Making: Assessing the Impact of Temporality, Comparator Choice, and Method of Adjustment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2021;109:452–61 10.1002/cpt.2012 [32767673]

[283] Clemens PR, Rao VK, Connolly AM, et al. Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Viltolarsen in Boys With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Amenable to Exon 53 Skipping: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol 2020;77:982–91 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1264 [32453377]

[284] Mackenzie CF, Dubé GP, Pitman AN. Re-analysis of the PolyHeme Phase III trial dataset: Lessons for future haemoglobin-based oxygen carrier trauma trials. Injury 2023;54:110712 10.1016/j.injury.2023.03.040 [37100694]