TY - JOUR
T1 - How often are patient-important outcomes represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials? an analysis of cochrane neonatal reviews
AU - Lai, Nai Ming
AU - Leom, Denise Yin Xian
AU - Chow, Wen Li
AU - Chen, Kee Hsin
AU - Lin, Pu Hong
AU - Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
AU - Ovelman, Colleen
AU - Soll, Roger
N1 - Funding Information:
The study was supported by the School of Medicine, Taylor’s University. There was no internal or external funding specifically for this study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Background: Research findings based on patient-important outcomes (PIOs) provide more useful conclusions than those that are based on surrogate outcomes. It is unclear to what extent PIOs are represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objectives: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews. Methods: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management. Results: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year). Conclusions: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.
AB - Background: Research findings based on patient-important outcomes (PIOs) provide more useful conclusions than those that are based on surrogate outcomes. It is unclear to what extent PIOs are represented in neonatal randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objectives: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews. Methods: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management. Results: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year). Conclusions: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.
KW - Neonatal outcome
KW - Patient-important outcomes
KW - Randomized controlled trial
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082528343&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85082528343&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1159/000506703
DO - 10.1159/000506703
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32209794
AN - SCOPUS:85082528343
SN - 1661-7800
VL - 117
SP - 428
EP - 435
JO - Neonatology
JF - Neonatology
IS - 4
ER -