Cited by 11

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Wang, Shirley V., Russo, Massimiliano, Glynn, Robert J., Bradley, Marie C., He, Jiwei, Concato, John, Schneeweiss, Sebastian·2025·Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Real‐world evidence involving healthcare database studies is well established for making causal inferences in post‐market drug safety studies and methods, data, and research infrastructure for evaluating effectiveness have advanced in recent years. The rapidly expanding field of etiologic research using insurance claims and electronic health records databases is being evaluated for supporting effectiveness claims. One such use case to support regulatory decision‐making on effectiveness is for expanding indications beyond existing effectiveness claims. Confidence in the validity of findings from cohort studies conducted using databases (hereafter “database study”) to support indication expansions could be increased through a structured benchmarking process of an initial database study against RCT evidence followed by calibration of a subsequent database study based on differences in results observed in the initial RCT‐database pair. This paper proposes a benchmark, expand, and calibration (BenchExCal) approach to trial emulation and describes the design and process for evaluating the performance of the approach through both simulation studies; five planned empirical examples are also described. The project will provide insights regarding how a first‐stage benchmarking emulation of a completed trial for an existing indication can be used to calibrate, increase confidence, and improve interpretation of the results for a second‐stage emulation of a hypothetical trial that could potentially provide evidence for an expanded indication. Although the examples have been selected to provide a variety of learnings, five use cases do not address all clinical and data scenarios that may be encountered when seeking a supplemental indication for a marketed drug.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpt.3621

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This study exemplifies how real-world evidence can meaningfully complement randomized trials through structured and rigorous analyses.

    “This study also exemplifies how real-world evidence can meaningfully complement randomized trials through structured and rigorous analyses.13-16”
  • This enabled benchmarking against existing trial evidence, highlighting the validity of outcome capture in claims data, and allowed for confident expansion to populations more representative of patients treated in clinical practice.

    “This enabled benchmarking against existing trial evidence, highlighting the validity of outcome capture in claims data, and allowed for confident expansion to populations more representative of patients treated in clinical practice.14,16”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. 10.1002/cpt.320 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/pds.4381 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1210/endrev/bnab007 · DOI
  5. Suissa S.S., 2012, Pharmacoepidemiology, 868
  6. 10.1093/epirev/mxac011 · DOI
  7. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001231 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/aje/kwac098 · DOI
  9. 10.1001/jama.2023.4221 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/cpt.1633 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1007/s10654-024-01119-3 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2938 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303199 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/ije/dyu149 · DOI
  16. 10.1001/jama.2016.17700 · DOI
  17. 10.1002/cpt.1351 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/cpt.1793 · DOI
  19. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051718 · DOI
  20. Rachel H., 2024, Design differences and variation in results between randomised trials and non‐randomised emulations: meta‐analysis of RCT‐DUPLICATE data, BMJ Med., 3, 10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000709 · DOI
  21. 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.57264/cer-2023-0147 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/s11606-018-4498-3 · DOI
  24. 10.1001/jama.2024.2988 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1056/NEJMoa0800374 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1056/NEJMoa076016 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1056/NEJMoa1113572 · DOI
  28. 10.1056/NEJMoa1007903 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1056/NEJMoa1901118 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1056/NEJMoa2107038 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004700 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, S. V., Russo, M., Glynn, R. J., Bradley, M. C., He, J., Concato, J., & Schneeweiss, S.
Affiliations
  • Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA
  • Office of Medical Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring Maryland USA
  • Office of Biostatistics Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration Silver Spring MD USA
  • Department of Medicine Yale School of Medicine New Haven Connecticut USA
Venue
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-03-11
Volume
117
Issue
6
Pages
1820-1828
ISSN
  • 0009-9236
  • 1532-6535
Cited by
11
References
4
Language
en

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