Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials - PubMed (original) (raw)
Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials
Gunjan Y Gandhi et al. JAMA. 2008.
Abstract
Context: Concerns about the safety and efficacy of diabetes interventions persist, in part because randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have not measured their effect on patient-important outcomes, ie, death and quality of life (morbidity, pain, function).
Objective: To systematically determine the extent to which ongoing and future RCTs in diabetes will ascertain patient-important outcomes.
Data sources: On November 10, 2007, we searched primary RCT registries ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register (http://isrctn.org), and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au).
Study selection: We identified phase 2 through 4 RCTs enrolling patients with diabetes. Of 2019 RCTs, 1054 proved eligible. We randomly sampled 50% of the eligible RCTs (527 of 1054) and selected 436 registered since registration became mandatory (2004).
Data extraction: Pairs of reviewers working independently collected study characteristics and determined the outcomes measured and their type (physiological outcomes, surrogate outcomes thought to reflect an increased risk for patient-important outcomes, and patient-important outcomes).
Results: Of the 436 registered RCTs included in this analysis, 24 (6%) had not started enrollment, 109 (25%) were actively enrolling, and 303 (69%) had completed enrollment. Primary outcomes were patient-important outcomes in only 78 of 436 RCTs (18%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-22%), physiological and laboratory outcomes in 69 of 436 (16%; 95% CI, 13%-20%), and surrogate outcomes in 268 of 436 (61%; 95% CI, 57%-66%). Patient-important outcomes were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 201 of 436 (46%; 95% CI, 41%-51%). In multivariate analysis, large trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19 for every additional 100 patients) and trials of longer duration (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06 for every additional 30 days) were more likely while parallel design RCTs (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.44) and type 2 diabetes trials (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61) were less likely to assess patient-important outcomes as a primary outcome.
Conclusion: In this sample of registered ongoing RCTs in diabetes, only 18% included patient-important outcomes as primary outcomes.
Similar articles
- Randomized controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: what gets published and when.
Khan NA, Singh M, Spencer HJ, Torralba KD. Khan NA, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Oct;66(10):2664-74. doi: 10.1002/art.38784. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014. PMID: 25154608 - Systematic evaluation of the quality of randomized controlled trials in diabetes.
Montori VM, Wang YG, Alonso-Coello P, Bhagra S. Montori VM, et al. Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1833-8. doi: 10.2337/dc06-0077. Diabetes Care. 2006. PMID: 16873788 - Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Orthopaedic Surgical Interventions.
Rongen JJ, Hannink G. Rongen JJ, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Mar 2;98(5):403-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00400. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016. PMID: 26935463 - Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis: A Cross-sectional Review.
Ross A, George D, Wayant C, Hamilton T, Vassar M. Ross A, et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May 1;145(5):468-474. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0145. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019. PMID: 30920611 Review. - Person-reported outcomes in registered randomised diabetes trials: A mapping review of constructs.
de Wit M, van Luik S, Marrero D, Barnard-Kelly K, Snoek FJ. de Wit M, et al. Diabet Med. 2024 Sep;41(9):e15385. doi: 10.1111/dme.15385. Epub 2024 Jun 14. Diabet Med. 2024. PMID: 38874332 Review.
Cited by
- Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how.
Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, Garrido P, Carrión J, Gutiérrez A, Kroes R, Flores A. Sacristán JA, et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Apr 27;10:631-40. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S104259. eCollection 2016. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016. PMID: 27175063 Free PMC article. Review. - Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses--Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes.
Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Busse JW, Schünemann HJ, Agarwal A, Guyatt GH. Johnston BC, et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jul 1;11:109. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-109. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013. PMID: 23815754 Free PMC article. Review. - Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis: Multinational Nominal Group Technique Study.
Manera KE, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Shen JI, Ruiz L, Wang AY, Yip T, Fung SKS, Tong M, Lee A, Cho Y, Viecelli AK, Sautenet B, Teixeira-Pinto A, Brown EA, Brunier G, Dong J, Dunning T, Mehrotra R, Naicker S, Pecoits-Filho R, Perl J, Wilkie M, Tong A. Manera KE, et al. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Jan 7;14(1):74-83. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05380518. Epub 2018 Dec 20. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019. PMID: 30573659 Free PMC article. - Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology-A systematic survey.
González-González JG, Dorsey-Treviño EG, Alvarez-Villalobos N, Barrera-Flores FJ, Díaz González-Colmenero A, Quintanilla-Sánchez C, Montori VM, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R. González-González JG, et al. PLoS One. 2019 Feb 19;14(2):e0212360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212360. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 30779814 Free PMC article. - Study design and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of chronic idiopathic or autoimmune urticaria: review.
Le Fourn E, Giraudeau B, Chosidow O, Doutre MS, Lorette G. Le Fourn E, et al. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 5;8(8):e70717. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070717. Print 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23940632 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical