Accounting for Misclassification of Binary Outcomes in External Control Arm Studies for Unanchored Indirect Comparisons: Simulations and Applied Example.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Mikail Nourredine, Antoine Gavoille, Côme Lepage, Behrouz Kassai-Koupai, Michel Cucherat, Fabien Subtil
{"title":"Accounting for Misclassification of Binary Outcomes in External Control Arm Studies for Unanchored Indirect Comparisons: Simulations and Applied Example.","authors":"Mikail Nourredine, Antoine Gavoille, Côme Lepage, Behrouz Kassai-Koupai, Michel Cucherat, Fabien Subtil","doi":"10.1002/sim.70236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Single-arm control trials are increasingly proposed as a potential approach for treatment evaluation. However, the limitations of this design restrict its methodological acceptability. Regulatory agencies have raised concerns about this approach, although it is sometimes required in applications based solely on such studies. Consequently, the need for accurate indirect treatment comparisons has become critical, especially when constructing external control arms using routinely collected data as outcome measurements may differ from those recorded in the single-arm trial leading to potential misclassification of outcomes. This study aimed to quantify the bias from ignoring misclassification of a binary outcome within unanchored indirect comparisons, through simulations, and to propose a likelihood-based method to correct this bias (i.e., the outcome-corrected model). Simulations demonstrated that ignoring misclassification results in significant bias and poor coverage probabilities. In contrast, the outcome-corrected model reduced bias, improved 95% confidence interval coverage probability and root mean square error in various scenarios. The methodology was applied to two hepatocellular carcinoma trials illustrating a practical application. The findings underscore the importance of addressing outcome misclassification in indirect comparisons. The proposed correction method may improve reliability in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":21879,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Medicine","volume":"44 20-22","pages":"e70236"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12422847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.70236","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Single-arm control trials are increasingly proposed as a potential approach for treatment evaluation. However, the limitations of this design restrict its methodological acceptability. Regulatory agencies have raised concerns about this approach, although it is sometimes required in applications based solely on such studies. Consequently, the need for accurate indirect treatment comparisons has become critical, especially when constructing external control arms using routinely collected data as outcome measurements may differ from those recorded in the single-arm trial leading to potential misclassification of outcomes. This study aimed to quantify the bias from ignoring misclassification of a binary outcome within unanchored indirect comparisons, through simulations, and to propose a likelihood-based method to correct this bias (i.e., the outcome-corrected model). Simulations demonstrated that ignoring misclassification results in significant bias and poor coverage probabilities. In contrast, the outcome-corrected model reduced bias, improved 95% confidence interval coverage probability and root mean square error in various scenarios. The methodology was applied to two hepatocellular carcinoma trials illustrating a practical application. The findings underscore the importance of addressing outcome misclassification in indirect comparisons. The proposed correction method may improve reliability in unanchored indirect treatment comparisons.

用于非锚定间接比较的外部控制臂研究中二元结果的错误分类:模拟和应用实例。
单臂对照试验越来越多地被提出作为治疗评估的潜在方法。然而,这种设计的局限性限制了其方法的可接受性。监管机构对这种方法提出了担忧,尽管有时仅基于此类研究的申请需要这种方法。因此,对准确的间接治疗比较的需求变得至关重要,特别是在使用常规收集的数据构建外部对照组时,因为结果测量可能与单臂试验中记录的结果不同,从而导致潜在的结果错误分类。本研究旨在通过模拟量化非锚定间接比较中忽略二元结果错误分类的偏差,并提出一种基于似然的方法来纠正这种偏差(即结果校正模型)。模拟表明,忽略错误分类会导致显著的偏差和较差的覆盖概率。相比之下,结果修正模型减少了偏差,提高了各种场景下95%置信区间覆盖概率和均方根误差。该方法应用于两个肝细胞癌试验,说明了实际应用。研究结果强调了在间接比较中解决结果错误分类的重要性。提出的校正方法可以提高非锚定间接处理比较的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Statistics in Medicine
Statistics in Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
334
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal aims to influence practice in medicine and its associated sciences through the publication of papers on statistical and other quantitative methods. Papers will explain new methods and demonstrate their application, preferably through a substantive, real, motivating example or a comprehensive evaluation based on an illustrative example. Alternatively, papers will report on case-studies where creative use or technical generalizations of established methodology is directed towards a substantive application. Reviews of, and tutorials on, general topics relevant to the application of statistics to medicine will also be published. The main criteria for publication are appropriateness of the statistical methods to a particular medical problem and clarity of exposition. Papers with primarily mathematical content will be excluded. The journal aims to enhance communication between statisticians, clinicians and medical researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信