Cargando…
Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review
BACKGROUND: The choice of outcome measure is a critical decision in the design of any clinical trial, but many Phase III clinical trials in critical care fail to detect a difference between the interventions being compared. This may be because the surrogate outcomes used to show beneficial effects i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10617004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36946422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17407745231151842 |
_version_ | 1785129511165100032 |
---|---|
author | Verghis, Rejina Blackwood, Bronagh McDowell, Cliona Toner, Philip Hadfield, Daniel Gordon, Anthony C Clarke, Mike McAuley, Daniel |
author_facet | Verghis, Rejina Blackwood, Bronagh McDowell, Cliona Toner, Philip Hadfield, Daniel Gordon, Anthony C Clarke, Mike McAuley, Daniel |
author_sort | Verghis, Rejina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The choice of outcome measure is a critical decision in the design of any clinical trial, but many Phase III clinical trials in critical care fail to detect a difference between the interventions being compared. This may be because the surrogate outcomes used to show beneficial effects in early phase trials (which informed the design of the subsequent Phase III trials) are not valid guides to the differences between the interventions for the main outcomes of the Phase III trials. We undertook a systematic review (1) to generate a list of outcome measures used in critical care trials, (2) to determine the variability in the outcome reporting in the respiratory subgroup and (3) to create a smaller list of potential early phase endpoints in the respiratory subgroup. METHODS: Data related to outcomes were extracted from studies published in the six top-ranked critical care journals between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes were classified into subcategories and categories. A subset of early phase endpoints relevant to the respiratory subgroup was selected for further investigation. The variability of the outcomes and the variability in reporting was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 6905 references were retrieved and a total of 294 separate outcomes were identified from 58 studies. The outcomes were then classified into 11 categories and 66 subcategories. A subset of 22 outcomes relevant for the respiratory group were identified as potential early phase outcomes. The summary statistics, time points and definitions show the outcomes are analysed and reported in different ways. CONCLUSION: The outcome measures were defined, analysed and reported in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for synthesising data in systematic reviews and planning definitive trials. This review once again highlights an urgent need for standardisation and validation of surrogate outcomes reported in critical care trials. Future work should aim to validate and develop a core outcome set for surrogate outcomes in critical care trials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10617004 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106170042023-11-01 Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review Verghis, Rejina Blackwood, Bronagh McDowell, Cliona Toner, Philip Hadfield, Daniel Gordon, Anthony C Clarke, Mike McAuley, Daniel Clin Trials Review BACKGROUND: The choice of outcome measure is a critical decision in the design of any clinical trial, but many Phase III clinical trials in critical care fail to detect a difference between the interventions being compared. This may be because the surrogate outcomes used to show beneficial effects in early phase trials (which informed the design of the subsequent Phase III trials) are not valid guides to the differences between the interventions for the main outcomes of the Phase III trials. We undertook a systematic review (1) to generate a list of outcome measures used in critical care trials, (2) to determine the variability in the outcome reporting in the respiratory subgroup and (3) to create a smaller list of potential early phase endpoints in the respiratory subgroup. METHODS: Data related to outcomes were extracted from studies published in the six top-ranked critical care journals between 2010 and 2020. Outcomes were classified into subcategories and categories. A subset of early phase endpoints relevant to the respiratory subgroup was selected for further investigation. The variability of the outcomes and the variability in reporting was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 6905 references were retrieved and a total of 294 separate outcomes were identified from 58 studies. The outcomes were then classified into 11 categories and 66 subcategories. A subset of 22 outcomes relevant for the respiratory group were identified as potential early phase outcomes. The summary statistics, time points and definitions show the outcomes are analysed and reported in different ways. CONCLUSION: The outcome measures were defined, analysed and reported in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for synthesising data in systematic reviews and planning definitive trials. This review once again highlights an urgent need for standardisation and validation of surrogate outcomes reported in critical care trials. Future work should aim to validate and develop a core outcome set for surrogate outcomes in critical care trials. SAGE Publications 2023-03-22 2023-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10617004/ /pubmed/36946422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17407745231151842 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Review Verghis, Rejina Blackwood, Bronagh McDowell, Cliona Toner, Philip Hadfield, Daniel Gordon, Anthony C Clarke, Mike McAuley, Daniel Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review |
title | Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review |
title_full | Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review |
title_fullStr | Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review |
title_short | Heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: A systematic review |
title_sort | heterogeneity of surrogate outcome measures used in critical care studies: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10617004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36946422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17407745231151842 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT verghisrejina heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT blackwoodbronagh heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT mcdowellcliona heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT tonerphilip heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT hadfielddaniel heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT gordonanthonyc heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT clarkemike heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview AT mcauleydaniel heterogeneityofsurrogateoutcomemeasuresusedincriticalcarestudiesasystematicreview |