Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28249722›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical epidemiology2017

Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS.

Ian J Saldanha, Tianjing Li, Cui Yang, Jill Owczarzak, Paula R Williamson, Kay Dickersin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Efficacy of Vitamin DNutrients · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Acetyl-L-carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Ranking evidence in substance use and addiction.The International journal on drug policy · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Ian J SaldanhaDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W6507-B, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Electronic address: isaldan1@jhmi.edu.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room E6011, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Cui YangDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2213 McElderry Street, 2nd floor, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Jill OwczarzakDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 North Broadway, Room 739, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Shelley's Cottage, Brownlow Street, Liverpool L69 3GS, UK.
Kay DickersinDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room E6152, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness Research & the Cochrane Eyes & Vision GroupU01EY020522 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2010 to 2016
$9.2M
Comparative Effectiveness & Medical Interventions for Primary Open Angle GlaucomaRC1EY020140 · NEI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERSIN, KAY · 2009 to 2010
$901k
Alcohol intervention in men with HIV in BaltimoreR00AA020782 · NIAAA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI YANG, CUI · 2014 to 2016
$722k
NEI NIH HHS RC1 EY020140NEI NIH HHS U01 EY020522NIAAA NIH HHS R00 AA020782
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe usefulness of clinical trials and systematic reviews is compromised when they report different outcomes. We compared outcomes in reviews of HIV/AIDS and the trials included in the reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS (as of June 2013) that included ≥1 trial and the trials that the reviews included. We compared outcomes within subgroups defined by type of intervention: clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services.

resultsWe included 84 reviews that encompassed 524 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial (8) and per review (7.5) was similar, the trials reported a considerably greater number of unique outcomes than the reviews (779 vs. 218), ranging from 2.3 times greater (clinical management) to 5.4 times greater (behavioral prevention). High proportions of trial outcomes were not in any review: 68% (clinical management) to 83% (behavioral prevention). Lower proportions of review outcomes were not in any trial: 11% (clinical management) to 39% (health services).

conclusionOutcomes in trials and reviews are not well aligned for appropriate inclusion of trial results in reviews and meta-analyses. Differences in perspectives, goals, and constraints between trialists and reviewers may explain differences in outcomes they consider important.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicClinical Trials as TopicHIV InfectionsHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareClinical trialsCore outcome setsHIV/AIDSOutcomesOutcome selectionSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28249722
PMCPMC5441957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.