Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21416190›Full record

ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2011

Permutation criteria to evaluate multiple clinical endpoints in a proof-of-concept study: lessons from Pre-RELAX-AHF.

Beth A Davison, Gad Cotter, Hengrui Sun, Li Chen, John R Teerlink, Marco Metra, G Michael Felker, Adriaan A Voors, Piotr Ponikowski, Gerasimos Filippatos and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.

Beth A DavisonMomentum Research, Inc., Durham, NC, USA. bethdavison@momentum-research.com
Gad Cotter
Hengrui Sun
Li Chen
John R Teerlink
Marco Metra
G Michael Felker
Adriaan A Voors
Piotr Ponikowski
Gerasimos Filippatos
Barry Greenberg
Sam L Teichman
Elaine Unemori
Gary G Koch
Momentum Research · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USClinical Research Institute · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USUniversity General Hospital Attikon · GRUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Brescia · ITUniversity of California, San Diego · USWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinically relevant endpoints cannot be routinely targeted with reasonable power in a small study. Hence, proof-of-concept studies are often powered to a primary surrogate endpoint. However, in acute heart failure (AHF) effects on surrogates have not translated into clinical benefit in confirmatory studies. Although observing an effect on one of many endpoints due to chance is likely, observing concurrent positive trends across several outcomes by chance is usually unlikely.

methodsPre-RELAX-AHF, which compared 4 relaxin doses with placebo in AHF, has shown favourable trends versus placebo (one-sided P < 0.10) on six of nine clinical endpoints in the 30 μg/kg/day group. To illustrate evaluation of multiple, correlated clinical endpoints for evidence of efficacy and for dose selection, a permutation method was applied retrospectively. By randomly re-assigning the treatment group to the actual data for each of the 229 subjects, 20,000 permutation samples were constructed.

resultsThe permutation P value for at least six favourable trends among nine endpoints in any dose groups was 0.0073 (99.9% CI 0.0053-0.0093). This is higher than would be expected if the endpoints were uncorrelated (0.00026), but much lower than the probability of observing one of nine comparisons significant at the traditional two-sided P < 0.05 (0.74). Thus, the result was unlikely due to correlated endpoints or to chance.

conclusionsExamining consistency of effect across multiple clinical endpoints in a proof-of-concept study may identify efficacious therapies and enable dose selection for confirmatory trials. The merit of the approach described requires confirmation through prospective application in designing future studies.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseDose-Response Relationship, DrugEndpoint DeterminationHeart FailureHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRelaxinRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeRelaxin

Identifiers

PMID21416190
PMCPMC3167045
OpenAlexW2126770408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.