Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to assess an article using surrogate end points.

Lucas Gallo, Cagla Eskicioglu, Luis H Braga, Forough Farrokhyar, Achilleas Thoma

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Are ultra-short heart rate variability features good surrogates of short-term ones? State-of-the-art review and recommendations.Healthcare technology letters · 2018
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

5 authors.

Lucas GalloFrom the Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu); the Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Braga); the Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Thoma); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu, Braga, Farrokhyar, Thoma); the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Gallo); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Farrokhyar, Thoma).

Cagla EskiciogluFrom the Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu); the Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Braga); the Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Thoma); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu, Braga, Farrokhyar, Thoma); the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Gallo); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Farrokhyar, Thoma).

Luis H BragaFrom the Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu); the Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Braga); the Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Thoma); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu, Braga, Farrokhyar, Thoma); the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Gallo); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Farrokhyar, Thoma).

Forough FarrokhyarFrom the Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu); the Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Braga); the Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Thoma); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu, Braga, Farrokhyar, Thoma); the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Gallo); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Farrokhyar, Thoma).

Achilleas ThomaFrom the Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu); the Division of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Braga); the Division of Plastic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Thoma); the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Eskicioglu, Braga, Farrokhyar, Thoma); the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Gallo); and the Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Farrokhyar, Thoma).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

summaryPhase 3 randomized controlled trials are the widely accepted gold standard through which treatment decisions are made, as they assess the efficacy of a novel treatment against the control on the relevant patient population. The effectiveness of the novel treatment should be derived by measuring patient-important outcomes; however, to accurately assess these outcomes, clinical trials often require extensive patient follow-up and large sample sizes that can incur substantial expense. For this reason, investigators substitute surrogate end points to reduce the sample size and duration of a trial, ultimately reducing cost. The purpose of this article is to help surgeons appraise the surgical literature that use surrogate end points for patient-important outcomes.

Indexed as

Bibliographies as TopicBiomarkersGuidelines as TopicResearch DesignClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurgical Procedures, OperativeBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID28730989

DOI10.1503/cjs.002217

PMCPMC5529160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.