Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24366279›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2014

Development of a composite endpoint for randomized controlled trials in pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Marielle M E Coolsen, Stefan H E M Clermonts, Ronald M van Dam, Bjorn Winkens, Massimo Malagó, Giuseppe K Fusai, Cornelis H C Dejong, Steven W M Olde Damink

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. ERAS: Improving outcome in the cachectic HPB patient.Journal of surgical oncology · 2017
    Review
  5. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marielle M E CoolsenDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands, marielle.coolsen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Stefan H E M Clermonts
Ronald M van Dam
Bjorn Winkens
Massimo Malagó
Giuseppe K Fusai
Cornelis H C Dejong
Steven W M Olde Damink
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLThe Royal Free Hospital · GBMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). An important factor contributing to this is the large number of patients needed to adequately power RCTs for relevant clinical single endpoints. A PD-specific composite endpoint (CEP) could solve this problem. The aim of the present study was to develop a PD-specific CEP, consisting of complications related to PD, allowing reduction in sample sizes and improving the ability to compare outcomes.

methodsPD-specific CEP components were selected after a systematic review of the literature and consensus between 25 international pancreatic surgeons. Ultimately, prospective cohorts of patients who underwent PD in two high-volume HPB centers (London, UK, and Maastricht, NL) were used to assess the event rate and effect of implementing a PD-specific CEP.

resultsFrom a total of 18 single-component endpoints, intra-abdominal abscess, sepsis, post-PD hemorrhage, bile leakage, gastrojejunostomy leakage, leakage of the pancreatic anastomosis, delayed gastric emptying, and operative mortality within 90 days were selected to be included the PD-specific CEP. All eight components had consensus definitions and a Dindo-Clavien classification of 3 or more. The incidence of the PD-specific CEP was 24.7 % in the Maastricht cohort and 23.3 % in the London cohort. These incidence rates led to a twofold reduction in the theoretical calculated sample size for an adequately powered RCT on PD using this CEP as a primary endpoint.

conclusionsThe proposed PD-specific CEP enables clinical investigators to adequately power RCTs on PD and increases the feasibility, comparability, and utility in meta-analysis.

Indexed as

Endpoint DeterminationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPancreaticoduodenectomyPractice Guidelines as TopicUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID24366279
OpenAlexW2038698908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.