Inconsistent reporting of surrogate outcomes in randomised clinical trials: cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To assess if authors of randomised clinical trials convey the fact that they have used surrogate outcomes and discussed their validity.Design
Cohort study.Setting
Six major general medical journals.Participants
Randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 that used a surrogate as a primary outcome.Results
Of 626 published randomised clinical trials, 109 (17%) used a surrogate as a primary outcome. Of these trials, 62 (57%, 95% confidence interval 47% to 67%) clearly reported that the primary outcome was a surrogate. Only 38 (35%, 26% to 45%) also discussed the validity of the surrogate.Conclusion
Only about one third of authors of randomised clinical trials that used a surrogate as a primary outcome reported adequately on the surrogate. Better reporting is needed.
SUBMITTER: la Cour JL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2923691 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSystemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors.MethodsWe analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively.FindingsAmong 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials.InterpretationOver the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time.FundingStanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.
| S-EPMC9302767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adaptive clinical trials have designs that evolve over time because of changes to treatments or changes to the chance that participants will receive these treatments. These changes might introduce confounding that biases crude comparisons of the treatment arms and makes the results from standard reporting methods difficult to interpret for adaptive trials. To deal with this shortcoming, a reporting framework for adaptive trials was developed based on concurrently randomised cohort reporting. A concurrently randomised cohort is a subgroup of participants who all had the same treatments available and the same chance of receiving these treatments. The reporting of pre-randomisation characteristics and post-randomisation outcomes for each concurrently randomised cohort in the study is recommended. This approach provides a transparent and unbiased display of the degree of baseline balance and the randomised treatment comparisons for adaptive trials. The key concepts, terminology, and recommendations underlying concurrently randomised cohort reporting are presented, and its routine use in adaptive trial reporting is advocated.
| S-EPMC10510920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Novel antiangiogenic agents currently being developed may ultimately be more effective against solid tumours and less toxic than cytotoxic chemotherapy. As a result of the early clinical trials of angiogenesis inhibitors, investigators are beginning to appreciate the complexity of targeting angiogenesis and the realisation that developing clinically useful antiangiogenic therapy will be more challenging than originally thought. It is now apparent that new methods and surrogate markers to assess these agents' biological activity are crucial for their successful development. This review summarises the currently available clinical data on the development of surrogate markers of angiogenesis inhibitors.
| S-EPMC2394225 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionPatients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources.Ethics and disseminationA paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.
| S-EPMC6377514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are health reports that come directly from the patients themselves and represented the experience and insights of the patient's perspective on the impact of the intervention. PROs were increasingly emphasised in acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the reporting quality of PROs in acupuncture RCTs has not been investigated to date. Therefore, we constructed this study to reveal the basic characteristics and reporting quality of PROs in acupuncture RCTs, and explore the relationship between concealment, blinding and RROs. We hope our findings can provide guidance for the reporting standards and future development of PROs in acupuncture RCTs in reverse.Methods and analysisRCTs using acupuncture treatment as the intervention and PROs as primary outcomes or secondary outcomes will be systematically searched through seven databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP between 1 January 2012 and 15 October 2022. The basic characteristics, concealment, blinding design and the characteristics of PROs in included RCTs will be summarised. The reporting quality of PROs will be assessed based on the CONSORT PRO extension. Logistic analysis will be performed to identify the association between concealment, blinding and RROs.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.
| S-EPMC10860004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourcesAll randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine.Study selectionTwo independent reviewers selected trials.Data extractionTrial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes.Results84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses.ConclusionsTrials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.
| S-EPMC3558411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Outcome reporting bias (ORB) in randomised trials has been identified as a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Previous work highlighting this problem is limited to considering a single primary review outcome. The aim of this study was to assess ORB across all efficacy outcomes in the Cochrane systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. Systematic reviews of interventions for cystic fibrosis published on the Cochrane Library by the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group before 2010 were assessed for discrepancies in outcomes between review protocol and full review. ORB in eligible trials was also assessed for all efficacy review outcomes. Two authors independently classified each outcome using a nine-point classification system developed by the Outcome Reporting Bias In Trials study. These classifications were used to inform the assessment of the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting for each trial. -46 Cochrane cystic fibrosis systematic reviews were included. The median number of primary outcomes, number of trials and participants per trial in the reviews were 3 (IQR 2, 3), 4 (IQR 2, 8) and 21 (IQR 14, 41), respectively. 18 reviews (39%, 18/46) had a discrepancy in outcomes between protocol and full review. 37 reviews were eligible to be included in the ORB assessment. When considering review primary outcomes and all review outcomes, ORB was suspected in at least one trial in 86% and 100%, respectively. Assessment of ORB within a systematic review of a single primary outcome underestimates the risk of ORB in comparison to the assessment of multiple primary and secondary outcomes. ORB in trials is highly prevalent within systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis when assessed across all outcomes. This could be reduced by the development of a core outcome set for trials and systematic reviews in cystic fibrosis.
| S-EPMC3669728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.
| S-EPMC6398699 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11231881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo study how composite outcomes, which have combined several components into a single measure, are defined, reported, and interpreted.DesignSystematic review of parallel group randomised clinical trials published in 2008 reporting a binary composite outcome. Two independent observers extracted the data using a standardised data sheet, and two other observers, blinded to the results, selected the most important component.ResultsOf 40 included trials, 29 (73%) were about cardiovascular topics and 24 (60%) were entirely or partly industry funded. Composite outcomes had a median of three components (range 2-9). Death or cardiovascular death was the most important component in 33 trials (83%). Only one trial provided a good rationale for the choice of components. We judged that the components were not of similar importance in 28 trials (70%); in 20 of these, death was combined with hospital admission. Other major problems were change in the definition of the composite outcome between the abstract, methods, and results sections (13 trials); missing, ambiguous, or uninterpretable data (9 trials); and post hoc construction of composite outcomes (4 trials). Only 24 trials (60%) provided reliable estimates for both the composite and its components, and only six trials (15%) had components of similar, or possibly similar, clinical importance and provided reliable estimates. In 11 of 16 trials with a statistically significant composite, the abstract conclusion falsely implied that the effect applied also to the most important component.ConclusionsThe use of composite outcomes in trials is problematic. Components are often unreasonably combined, inconsistently defined, and inadequately reported. These problems will leave many readers confused, often with an exaggerated perception of how well interventions work.
| S-EPMC2923692 | biostudies-literature