Adverse Events as End Points: The Need to Account for Both Sides of the Same Coin.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. Oncological and Survival Endpoints in Cancer Cachexia Clinical Trials: Systematic Review 6 of the Cachexia Endpoints Series.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025
   Pooled it
2. Applications of simple and accessible methods for meta-analysis involving rare events: A simulation study.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021
   Pooled it
3. Regional variations in adverse event reporting rates and ACR responses in placebo/standard-of-care arms of rheumatoid arthritis trials.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2020
   Observational

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Reporting Clinical End Points and Safety Events in an Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial: Results With Integrated Collection.2017

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as