ArticleTrials2017
Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients.
Article in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 178 papers, 28 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
178 citing papers in PubMed, 28 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Invisible Harms, Visible Benefits? Adverse Event Reporting in Physical Activity Interventions for Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Meta-analysis and Critical Appraisal.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Pivotal studies of pharmacotherapies approved by the US FDA for cancer treatment: a meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2026Pooled it
- Social determinants of health in studies using PROMs to assess toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of outcomes reported in clinical research on nephronophthisis: how do they align with SONG Kids priorities?Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Pooled it
- Global landscape of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder clinical trials: trends in therapies, geography, and outcomes.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop smoking intervention in adults: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- A landscape analysis of clinical trials and infant clinical trials in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Ultra-processed foods consumption and health-related outcomes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Anti-seizure medications for neonates with seizures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Agents contributing to secondary immunodeficiency development in patients with multiple myeloma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A systematic literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: a case study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Screening for depression among the general adult population and in women during pregnancy or the first-year postpartum: two systematic reviews to inform a guideline of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2022Guideline
- Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Inclusion of participants from low-income and middle-income countries in core outcome sets development: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review finds Core Outcome Set uptake varies widely across different areas of health.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Core outcomes in neonatology: development of a core outcome set for neonatal research.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2020Pooled it
118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients' perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.
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.