Dataset Information

Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of surrogate and composite endpoints, disease-specific mortality as an endpoint, and relative (rather than absolute) risk reporting in clinical trials may produce results that are misleading or difficult to interpret.

Objective

To describe the prevalence of these endpoints and of relative risk reporting in medication trials. DESIGN AND MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed all randomized medication trials published in the six highest impact general medicine journals between June 1, 2008 and September 30, 2010 and determined the percentage using these endpoints and the percentage reporting results in the abstract exclusively in relative terms.

Key results

We identified 316 medication trials, of which 116 (37%) used a surrogate primary endpoint and 106 (34%) used a composite primary endpoint. Among 118 trials in which the primary endpoint involved mortality, 32 (27%) used disease-specific mortality rather than all-cause mortality. Among 157 trials with positive results, 69 (44%) reported these results in the abstract exclusively in relative terms. Trials using surrogate endpoints and disease-specific mortality as an endpoint were more likely to be exclusively commercially funded (45% vs. 29%, difference 15% [95% CI 5%-26%], P = 0.004, and 39% vs. 16%, difference 22% [95% CI 6%-37%], P = 0.007, respectively). Trials using surrogate endpoints were more likely to report positive results (66% vs. 49%, difference 17% [95% CI 5%-28%], P = 0.006) while those using mortality endpoints were less likely to be positive (46% vs. 62%, difference -16% [95% CI -27%--4%], P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The use of surrogate and composite endpoints, endpoints involving disease-specific mortality, and relative risk reporting is common. Articles should highlight the limitations of these endpoints and should report results in absolute terms.

SUBMITTER: Hochman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3208473 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials.

Hochman Michael M McCormick Danny D

Journal of general internal medicine 20110813 11

<h4>Background</h4>The use of surrogate and composite endpoints, disease-specific mortality as an endpoint, and relative (rather than absolute) risk reporting in clinical trials may produce results that are misleading or difficult to interpret.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the prevalence of these endpoints and of relative risk reporting in medication trials. DESIGN AND MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed all randomized medication trials published in the six highest impact general medicine journals betwee ...[more]

PMID: 21842324

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDetails about the type of analysis (e.g., intent to treat [ITT]) and definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in the analysis) are necessary for interpreting a clinical trial's findings. Our objective was to compare the description of types of analyses and criteria for including participants in the publication (i.e., what was reported) with descriptions in the corresponding internal company documents (i.e., what was planned and what was done). Trials were for off-label uses of gabapentin sponsored by Pfizer and Parke-Davis, and documents were obtained through litigation.Methods and findingsFor each trial, we compared internal company documents (protocols, statistical analysis plans, and research reports, all unpublished), with publications. One author extracted data and another verified, with a third person verifying discordant items and a sample of the rest. Extracted data included the number of participants randomized and analyzed for efficacy, and types of analyses for efficacy and safety and their definitions (i.e., criteria for including participants in each type of analysis). We identified 21 trials, 11 of which were published randomized controlled trials, and that provided the documents needed for planned comparisons. For three trials, there was disagreement on the number of randomized participants between the research report and publication. Seven types of efficacy analyses were described in the protocols, statistical analysis plans, and publications, including ITT and six others. The protocol or publication described ITT using six different definitions, resulting in frequent disagreements between the two documents (i.e., different numbers of participants were included in the analyses).ConclusionsDescriptions of analyses conducted did not agree between internal company documents and what was publicly reported. Internal company documents provide extensive documentation of methods planned and used, and trial findings, and should be publicly accessible. Reporting standards for randomized controlled trials should recommend transparent descriptions and definitions of analyses performed and which study participants are excluded.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.DesignReview of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.SettingCluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.Results77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).ConclusionsReporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Project description:Background & aimsIn 2005, the registration of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before enrolment of participants became a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to increase transparency in trial reporting. Among RCTs on transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) published after 2007, we assess the proportion that were registered and compare registered primary outcomes (PO) with those reported in publications to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favoured significant outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for reports of RCTs evaluating TACE for HCC treatment between 1 September 2007 and 31 March 2018. Registration and publication information for each included RCT was compared using a standardised data extraction form.ResultsThirteen out of 53 (25%) included RCTs were correctly registered (i.e. before the starting date of the RCT), 14 (26%) were registered after the RCT starting date, and 26 (49%) were not registered. Six out of 14 of the retrospectively registered RCTs (43%) were registered after their completion date. The PO was clearly reported in the published article of all registered RCTs, whereas the report was not clear in 8/26 (31%) of the non-registered RCTs (p = 0.01). Among registered RCTs, 8/27 (30%) had major discrepancies between registered and published PO. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in 6 of them and was shown to statistically favour significant results in 2.ConclusionsRegistration and outcome reporting in RCTs on TACE for HCC are often inadequate. Registration should be reinforced because it is a key to transparency.Lay summaryTrial registration is fundamental to our understanding and interpretation of results, as it provides information on all relevant clinical trials (to place the results in a broader context), and on the details of their associated protocols (to ensure that the scientific plan is followed). Once a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is completed, the trial results are usually publicly shared via scientific articles that are expected to thoroughly and objectively report them. This study shows that half of the RCTs evaluating transarterial chemoembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma were not registered, and identified major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome favouring significant results.

Dataset Information

Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials.

Background

Objective

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets