Related Experiment Videos
Are study design characteristics in single-arm trials comparable with those of their objective performance criteria
Handong Wang1, Qianyun Chai1, Fanhui Jin2
1Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Center for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Objectives:
Single-arm trials (SATs) with objective performance criteria (OPCs) or performance goals (PGs) are increasingly used for regulatory approval of medical devices and other interventions. However, the comparability of study design characteristics between SAT and their external comparator sources remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the comparability of study design characteristics between SATs and their matched OPC/PG sources.
Design:
Scoping review.
Data Sources:
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases-China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, CQVIP and SinoMed-were searched from inception to 30 April 2026.
Eligibility Criteria:
We included SATs that used one or more OPCs or PGs as external comparators to evaluate safety and/or effectiveness endpoints and reported specific numerical values of OPCs or PGs.
Data Extraction And Synthesis:
Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved records and extracted data using a standardised form. For each included SAT, we retrieved the cited OPC/PG sources and extracted study design characteristics data (age, sex, health conditions, outcome definitions and measurement time points) for comparison. Age and sex were compared using summary t-tests and χ² tests; health conditions were assessed by two clinicians based on eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics. Results were stratified by OPC versus PG.
Results:
A total of 1243 records were identified, and 133 SATs were included. Most studies used PGs (84, 63.2%); 34 (25.6%) claimed to use OPCs, and 15 (11.3%) could not be classified. Of the 60 age comparisons available from 41 studies, 30 showed statistically significant differences; of the 82 sex comparisons available from 59 studies, 60 showed significant differences. Health conditions, outcome definitions and time points were assessed descriptively in a subset of studies, and discrepancies were also observed.
Conclusion:
Suboptimal comparability of study design characteristics was observed between SATs and their OPC/PG sources, which might influence the treatment effect estimates. Greater attention to the comparability of study design characteristics in SATs with OPC/PGs may improve the validity of evidence.
Related Concept Videos
01:15Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:16Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
01:20Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
01:11Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies
01:15Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...