Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials: Use of External Controls
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard to investigate efficacy and safety of new treatments. In certain settings, however, randomizing patients to control may be difficult for ethical or feasibility reasons. Borrowing strength using relevant individual patient data on control from external trials or real-world data (RWD) sources may then allow us to reduce, or even eliminate, the concurrent control group. Naive direct use of external control data is not valid due to differences in patient characteristics and other confounding factors. Instead, we suggest the rigorous application of meta-analytic and propensity score methods to use external controls in a principled way. We illustrate these methods with two case studies: (i) a single-arm trial in a rare cancer disease, using propensity score matching to construct an external control from RWD; (ii) a randomized trial in children with multiple sclerosis, borrowing strength from past trials using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 97 · Cited by 125
- Authors
- Schmidli, H., Häring, D. A., Thomas, M., Cassidy, A., Weber, S., & Bretz, F.
- Affiliations
- Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Bretz, Frank
- Venue
- Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-12-17
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 806-816
- ISSN
- 0009-9236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6535
- OpenAlex
- W2983727442
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 1.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- external control, borrowing strength, individual patient data, real-world data, meta-analysis, propensity score matching, rare tumor, pediatric multiple sclerosis, Bayesian meta-analysis, confounding, treatment efficacy and safety
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Multiple Sclerosis, Neoplasms, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Endpoint Determination, Propensity Score
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review