Dataset Information

Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To study how composite outcomes, which have combined several components into a single measure, are defined, reported, and interpreted.

Design

Systematic 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.

Results

Of 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Cordoba G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2923692 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature on the frequency of reporting of sociodemographic data (gender, race, ethnicity, education status, health insurance status, geographic location of residence, and socioeconomic status) among interventional clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients.Databases reviewedA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and SCOPUS to identify peer reviewed research.MethodsA systematic review was performed, which included original prospective clinical trial research studies involving cochlear implantation and/or interventional trials involving cochlear implant patients. Collected data included funding type, level of evidence, race reporting, ethnicity reporting, socioeconomic status reporting, education level reporting, type of insurance, geographic location, and gender of patients.ResultsA total of 644 articles were included for review. Gender was the most reported sociodemographic factor (70% of included studies). Reporting of other data among included studies was low: educational level (6%), socioeconomic status (2%), race (1%), ethnicity (1%), insurance status (0.3%), and geography (1%). The odds of reporting gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51), education (OR = 1.81), and geography (OR = 2.72) increased with each subsequent publication date decade; however, this trend was not seen for reporting of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or insurance. The reporting of gender was less likely to be reported in studies with the pediatric participants (OR = 0.62), level II evidence (OR = 0.14), and device programming interventional studies (OR = 0.26).ConclusionReporting of sociodemographic data, other than gender, is low among prospective clinical trials involving cochlear implant patients. The lack of reporting of this key data may limit research rigor and generalizability. Clinical researchers are advised to prospectively collect these data to promote equity in cochlear implant research and clinical care.

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.