Abstract:Objectives: Randomized noncomparative trials (RNCTs) promise reduced accrual requirements vs randomized controlled comparative trials because RNCTs do not enroll a control group and instead compare outcomes to historical controls or prespecified estimates. We hypothesized that RNCTs often suffer from two methodological concerns: (1) lack of interpretability due to group-specific inferences in nonrandomly selected samples and (2) misinterpretation due to unlicensed between-group comparisons lacking prespecification. The purpose of this study was to characterize RNCTs and the incidence of these two methodological concerns. Study design and setting: We queried PubMed and Web of Science on September 14, 2023, to conduct a meta-epidemiological analysis of published RNCTs in any field of medicine. Trial characteristics and the incidence of methodological concerns were manually recorded. Results: We identified 70 RNCTs published from 2002 to 2023. RNCTs have been increasingly published over time (slope = 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.39, P < .001). Sixty trials (60/70, 86%) had a lack of interpretability for the primary endpoint due to group-specific inferences. Unlicensed between-group comparisons were present in 36 trials (36/70, 51%), including in the primary conclusion of 31 trials (31/70, 44%), and were accompanied by significance testing in 20 trials (20/70, 29%). Only five (5/70, 7%) trials were found to have neither of these flaws. Conclusion: Although RNCTs are increasingly published over time, the primary analysis of nearly all published RNCTs in the medical literature was unsupported by their fundamental underlying methodological assumptions. RNCTs promise group-specific inference, which they are unable to deliver, and undermine the primary advantage of randomization, which is comparative inference. The ongoing use of the RNCT design in lieu of a traditional randomized controlled comparative trial should therefore be reconsidered. Plain language summary: The typical way that doctors can learn whether new drugs are helpful is through a clinical trial. Often, doctors compare these new treatments to the control treatment being used in standard clinical practice. When researchers want to compare different treatments, they may decide to randomly assign one treatment or the other to trial participants. Like flipping a coin, randomly deciding which treatment to use can help researchers make the best comparisons between the new and control treatment by limiting certain biases. These trials are called "randomized comparative trials" and are the most common way researchers can improve medicine. A newer type of trial, called a "randomized noncomparative trial," has become increasingly popular in medicine. Like randomized comparative trials, this type of trial randomly decides which treatment participants receive. However, the "randomized noncomparative trial" is not designed to evaluate whether the new treatment results in better outcomes compared with the control treatment. Instead, the results of each randomized arm in the trial are compared to other patients, who are not a part of the trial, or to another measure set ahead of time by the researchers. This is justified by some researchers, who say that fewer participants are needed for such trials, which helps to finish the trial faster. However, directly comparing the results of patients after receiving a treatment on a clinical trial is one of the most important parts of the trial and the main reason why researchers would want to randomly assign treatments in the first place. To better understand how RNCTs are used in practice, we reviewed all such trials that have been completed in medicine to date. We found that more than half of RNCTs actually ended up comparing their patients anyway, despite saying they would not. This is a problem because these comparisons are not prespecified and may therefore be only reported when the result is what the researchers wanted. Furthermore, the main outcome of each trial was difficult to interpret in most trials because there was no effort to show that the enrolled patients were representative of any prespecified population that would facilitate comparisons with historical information. Overall, only five trials, or just 7% of the "randomized noncomparative trials" published in the medical literature, did not have either of these issues. As a result, this type of clinical trial does not seem to be a good way to improve medical care. If researchers want to learn which treatments are better, they should stick to the standard way to learn this-randomized comparative trials.

"The unbearable lightness" of the primary end point in clinical trials

Supplementary Data S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Table S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Proportion of treatment effect explained: An overview of interpretations

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials

Patient-Centered Clinical Trial Design for Heart Failure Devices via Bayesian Decision Analysis

Editorial Commentary: Clinical Trial Subgroup Analyses and Investigation of Secondary Outcome Measures Should Be Limited in Number to Avoid False Findings

A meta-epidemiological analysis of post-hoc comparisons and primary endpoint interpretability among randomized noncomparative trials in clinical medicine

Hierarchical End Points in Prior Heart Failure Trials and the HEART-FID Trial

Meaningful Endpoints for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) Clinical Trials: Emphasis on 'Feels, Functions, Survives'

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

Distinguishing Clinical from Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research

There is More to Length of Survival than Survival: Endpoints in Oncology Trials

Making the Ethical Oversight of All Clinical Trials Fit for Purpose

The "small" clinical trial: Methods, analysis and interpretation in acute care cardiology.

Thoughtful selection and use of scientific terms in clinical research: the case of ‘pragmatic’ trials

Fool’s gold? Why blinded trials are not always best

The Meta-Analysis: Supportive or Illuminating?

Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Effectiveness studies: advantages and disadvantages