Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30442099›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Development of standard clinical endpoints for use in dengue interventional trials: introduction and methodology.

Thomas Jaenisch, Kim Hendrickx, Martin Erpicum, Liane Agulto, Kay M Tomashek, Walla Dempsey, João Bosco Siqueira, Morgan A Marks, Michael P Fay, Catherine Laughlin and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Dengue vaccine development: status and future.Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2020
    Review
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

20 authors.

Thomas JaenischSection Clinical Tropical Medicine, Department of Infectious Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kim HendrickxPostdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) and Research Associate of Spiral, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Martin ErpicumMesydel, SPIRAL Research Center, Département de Science Politique, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Liane AgultoDivision of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Kay M TomashekDivision of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Walla DempseyDivision of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
João Bosco SiqueiraFederal University of Goias, Goiânia, Brazil.
Morgan A MarksPharmacoepidemiology Department, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA.
Michael P FayBiostatistics Research Branch, Division of Clinical Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Catherine LaughlinDivision of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Maina L'AzouGlobal Epidemiology, Sanofi-Pasteur, Lyon, France.
Yee-Sin LeoInstitute of Infectious Disease and Epidemiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, and National Centre for Infectious Diseases MOH, Singapore, Singapore.
Federico NarvaezInfectious Diseases Unit, National Pediatric Reference Hospital, Hospital Infantil Manuel de Jesús Rivera, Managua, Nicaragua.
Remy TeyssouPartnership for Dengue Control, Fondation Merieux, Lyon, France.
Stephen J ThomasDivision of Infectious Diseases, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Hasitha TisseraNational Dengue Control Unit, Ministry of Health, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Derek WallaceTakeda Pharmaceuticals International AG, Zurich, Switzerland.
Annelies Wilder-SmithPartnership for Dengue Control, Fondation Merieux, Lyon, France.
Duane J GublerPartnership for Dengue Control, Fondation Merieux, Lyon, France.
M Cristina CassettiDivision of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA. ccassetti@niaid.nih.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-0284-2522

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs increasing numbers of dengue vaccines and therapeutics are in clinical development, standardized consensus clinical endpoint definitions are urgently needed to assess the efficacy of different interventions with respect to disease severity. We aimed to convene dengue experts representing various sectors and dengue endemic areas to review the literature and propose clinical endpoint definitions for moderate and severe disease based on the framework provided by the WHO 2009 classification.

methodsThe endpoints were first proposed and discussed in a structured expert consultation. After that, the Delphi method was carried out to assess the usefulness, validity and feasibility of the standardized clinical disease endpoints for interventional dengue research.

resultsMost respondents (> 80%) agreed there is a need for both standardized clinical endpoints and operationalization of severe endpoints. Most respondents (67%) felt there is utility for moderate severity endpoints, but cited challenges in their development. Hospitalization as a moderate endpoint of disease severity or measure of public health impact was deemed to be useful by only 47% of respondents, but 89% felt it could bring about supplemental information if carefully contextualized according to data collection setting. Over half of the respondents favored alignment of the standard endpoints with the WHO guidelines (58%), but cautioned that the endpoints could have ramifications for public health practice. In terms of data granularity of the endpoints, there was a slight preference for a categorical vs numeric system (e.g. 1-10) (47% vs 34%), and 74% of respondents suggested validating the endpoints using large prospective data sets.

conclusionThe structured consensus-building process was successful taking into account the history of the debate around potential endpoints for severe dengue. There is clear support for the development of standardized endpoints for interventional clinical research and the need for subsequent validation with prospective data sets. Challenges include the complexity of developing moderate disease research endpoints for dengue.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDelphi TechniqueDengueDengue VaccinesEndpoint DeterminationHospitalizationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsDengue VaccinesDELPHIDengueEndpointsEpidemiologyInterventionPathophysiologySevere dengueStandardizationTherapeuticVaccineValidation

Identifiers

PMID30442099
PMCPMC6238344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.