Larger effect sizes in nonrandomized studies are associated with higher rates of EMA licensing approval is a research paper published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (2018). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.505. It has been cited 28 times.
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate how often the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has authorized drugs based on nonrandomized studies and whether there is an association between treatment effects and EMA preference for further testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Study design and settingWe reviewed all initial marketing authorizations in the EMA database on human medicines between 1995 and 2015 and included authorizations granted without randomized data. We extracted data on treatment effects and EMA preference for further testing in RCTs.ResultsOf 723 drugs, 51 were authorized based on nonrandomized data. These 51 drugs were licensed for 71 indications. In the 51 drug-indication pairs with no preference for further RCT testing, effect estimates were large [odds ratio (OR): 12.0 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 8.1-17.9)] compared to effect estimates in the 20 drug-indication pairs for which future RCTs were preferred [OR: 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-6.6)], with a significant difference between effects (P = 0.0005).ConclusionNonrandomized data were used for 7% of EMA drug approvals. Larger effect sizes were associated with greater likelihood of approval based on nonrandomized data alone. We did not find a clear treatment effect threshold for drug approval without RCT evidence.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.505
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.