ArticleWorld journal of methodology2014
End points of clinical trials in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo review the definition and performance of the commonly used end points in trials of systemic therapies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.
methodsA literature search was undertaken on PubMed database to identify studies meeting established criteria, with the aim of selecting randomized clinical trials and study definition and performance of their end points. The end points were grouped into three categories: overall survival (OS), time-to-event end points, and response end points. A special analysis was performed for secondary end points of the studies which documented a benefit in OS in the experimental arm. Finally, publishes analyses for surrogacy of the included end points were also reported.
resultsOS, time-to-event and response end points in 31 selected trials were analyzed. OS was the primary end point in 14 trials, and the secondary end point in 17. A time-to-event end point was the primary end point in 8 studies, and the secondary end point in 22; the most reported time-to-event end points were composite end points, and the events changed among trials. A response end point was the primary end point in 9 studies, in 3 it was prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-related, in 3 pain-related and in 3 mixed. A response end point was the secondary end point in 19 studies: PSA response and radiologic response were the most frequently used secondary end points in 19 and 11 trials, respectively, while pain response was used in 5 studies.
conclusionA homogeneous definition of progression in future trials is mandatory. Among response end points, pain-response and PSA-response appear to be the most reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.