Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
Identifieur interne : 000414 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 000413; suivant : 000415Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
Auteurs : Oriana Ciani [Royaume-Uni] ; Marc Buyse [Belgique] ; Ruth Garside [Royaume-Uni] ; Toby Pavey [Australie] ; Ken Stein [Royaume-Uni] ; Jonathan A C. Sterne [Royaume-Uni] ; Rod S. Taylor [Royaume-Uni]Source :
- BMJ : British Medical Journal [ 1756-1833 ] ; 2013.
Abstract
Objective To 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. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All 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 selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial 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. Results 84 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. Conclusions Trials 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.
Url:
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f457
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 000D93
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 000D84
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000070
- to stream Main, to step Merge: 000414
- to stream Main, to step Curation: 000414
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study</title><author><name sortKey="Ciani, Oriana" sort="Ciani, Oriana" uniqKey="Ciani O" first="Oriana" last="Ciani">Oriana Ciani</name></author><author><name sortKey="Buyse, Marc" sort="Buyse, Marc" uniqKey="Buyse M" first="Marc" last="Buyse">Marc Buyse</name></author><author><name sortKey="Garside, Ruth" sort="Garside, Ruth" uniqKey="Garside R" first="Ruth" last="Garside">Ruth Garside</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pavey, Toby" sort="Pavey, Toby" uniqKey="Pavey T" first="Toby" last="Pavey">Toby Pavey</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stein, Ken" sort="Stein, Ken" uniqKey="Stein K" first="Ken" last="Stein">Ken Stein</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sterne, Jonathan A C" sort="Sterne, Jonathan A C" uniqKey="Sterne J" first="Jonathan A C" last="Sterne">Jonathan A C. Sterne</name></author><author><name sortKey="Taylor, Rod S" sort="Taylor, Rod S" uniqKey="Taylor R" first="Rod S" last="Taylor">Rod S. Taylor</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:56452427683CD510CCBA48A98376AD96C0159A74</idno><date when="2013" year="2013">2013</date><idno type="doi">10.1136/bmj.f457</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/56452427683CD510CCBA48A98376AD96C0159A74/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000D93</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">000D84</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000070</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">000414</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">000414</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">000414</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study</title><author><name sortKey="Ciani, Oriana" sort="Ciani, Oriana" uniqKey="Ciani O" first="Oriana" last="Ciani">Oriana Ciani</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>PenTAG, Institute for Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:noRegion></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country wicri:rule="url">Royaume-Uni</country></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Buyse, Marc" sort="Buyse, Marc" uniqKey="Buyse M" first="Marc" last="Buyse">Marc Buyse</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Belgique</country><wicri:regionArea>International Drug Development Institute, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium and Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Diepenbeek</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Garside, Ruth" sort="Garside, Ruth" uniqKey="Garside R" first="Ruth" last="Garside">Ruth Garside</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>PenTAG, Institute for Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Pavey, Toby" sort="Pavey, Toby" uniqKey="Pavey T" first="Toby" last="Pavey">Toby Pavey</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Australie</country><wicri:regionArea>School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>QLD</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stein, Ken" sort="Stein, Ken" uniqKey="Stein K" first="Ken" last="Stein">Ken Stein</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>PenTAG, Institute for Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sterne, Jonathan A C" sort="Sterne, Jonathan A C" uniqKey="Sterne J" first="Jonathan A C" last="Sterne">Jonathan A C. Sterne</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Bristol</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Taylor, Rod S" sort="Taylor, Rod S" uniqKey="Taylor R" first="Rod S" last="Taylor">Rod S. Taylor</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>PenTAG, Institute for Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Exeter EX2 4SG</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">BMJ : British Medical Journal</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">BMJ</title><idno type="eISSN">1756-1833</idno><imprint><publisher>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><date type="published" when="2013">2013</date><biblScope unit="volume">346</biblScope></imprint></series><idno type="istex">56452427683CD510CCBA48A98376AD96C0159A74</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1136/bmj.f457</idno><idno type="href">bmj-346-bmj-f457.pdf</idno><idno type="ArticleID">ciao006838</idno><idno type="local">bmj;346/jan29_1/f457</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Objective To 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. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All 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 selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial 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. Results 84 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. Conclusions Trials 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.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list><country><li>Australie</li><li>Belgique</li><li>Royaume-Uni</li></country></list><tree><country name="Royaume-Uni"><noRegion><name sortKey="Ciani, Oriana" sort="Ciani, Oriana" uniqKey="Ciani O" first="Oriana" last="Ciani">Oriana Ciani</name></noRegion><name sortKey="Ciani, Oriana" sort="Ciani, Oriana" uniqKey="Ciani O" first="Oriana" last="Ciani">Oriana Ciani</name><name sortKey="Garside, Ruth" sort="Garside, Ruth" uniqKey="Garside R" first="Ruth" last="Garside">Ruth Garside</name><name sortKey="Stein, Ken" sort="Stein, Ken" uniqKey="Stein K" first="Ken" last="Stein">Ken Stein</name><name sortKey="Sterne, Jonathan A C" sort="Sterne, Jonathan A C" uniqKey="Sterne J" first="Jonathan A C" last="Sterne">Jonathan A C. Sterne</name><name sortKey="Taylor, Rod S" sort="Taylor, Rod S" uniqKey="Taylor R" first="Rod S" last="Taylor">Rod S. Taylor</name></country><country name="Belgique"><noRegion><name sortKey="Buyse, Marc" sort="Buyse, Marc" uniqKey="Buyse M" first="Marc" last="Buyse">Marc Buyse</name></noRegion></country><country name="Australie"><noRegion><name sortKey="Pavey, Toby" sort="Pavey, Toby" uniqKey="Pavey T" first="Toby" last="Pavey">Toby Pavey</name></noRegion></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Belgique/explor/OpenAccessBelV2/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000414 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 000414 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Belgique
|area= OpenAccessBelV2
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:56452427683CD510CCBA48A98376AD96C0159A74
|texte= Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. |  |