Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27354827›Full record

ReviewClinical epidemiology2016

Challenges in translating endpoints from trials to observational cohort studies in oncology.

Anne Gulbech Ording, Deirdre Cronin-Fenton, Vera Ehrenstein, Timothy L Lash, John Acquavella, Mikael Rørth, Henrik Toft Sørensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Anne Gulbech OrdingDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Deirdre Cronin-FentonDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Vera EhrensteinDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Timothy L LashDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
John AcquavellaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mikael RørthDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Henrik Toft SørensenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials are considered the gold standard for examining drug efficacy and for approval of new drugs. Medical databases and population surveillance registries are valuable resources for post-approval observational research, which are increasingly used in studies of benefits and risk of new cancer drugs. Here, we address the challenges in translating endpoints from oncology trials to observational studies. Registry-based cohort studies can investigate real-world safety issues - including previously unrecognized concerns - by examining rare endpoints or multiple endpoints at once. In contrast to clinical trials, observational cohort studies typically do not exclude real-world patients from clinical practice, such as old and frail patients with comorbidity. The observational cohort study complements the clinical trial by examining the effectiveness of interventions applied in clinical practice and by providing evidence on long-term clinical outcomes, which are often not feasible to study in a clinical trial. Various endpoints can be included in clinical trials, such as hard endpoints, soft endpoints, surrogate endpoints, and patient-reported endpoints. Each endpoint has it strengths and limitations for use in research studies. Endpoints used in oncology trials are often not applicable in observational cohort studies which are limited by the setting of standard clinical practice and by non-standardized endpoint determination. Observational studies can be more helpful moving research forward if they restrict focus to appropriate and valid endpoints.

Indexed as

endpoint determinationmedical oncologyneoplasmsresearch designtreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID27354827
PMCPMC4910679

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.