ReviewJNCI cancer spectrum2019
A Systematic Review and Recommendation for Reporting of Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation Using Meta-analyses.
Review in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 11 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials of p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: an individual patient data meta-analysis.The Lancet. Oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in randomized clinical trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Evaluating relapse-free survival as an endpoint for overall survival in adjuvant immunotherapy trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Pooled it
- Surrogacy analysis of intermediate end-points for overall survival in randomized controlled trials of rhabdomyosarcoma.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomised clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Surrogate endpoint evaluation using data from one large global randomized controlled trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Intermediate clinical endpoints for surrogacy in localised prostate cancer: an aggregate meta-analysis.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Pooled it
- The surrogacy of disease-free survival for overall survival in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant therapy.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Associations between early changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and outcomes across randomized trials: Insights from the ctMoniTR project.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Review
- Precision Cardio-Oncology and Nuclear Imaging: Current Applications, Molecular Innovations, and Future Trajectories.Cancers · 2026Review
- A surrogate endpoint-based provisional approval causal roadmap, illustrated by vaccine development.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Event-Free Survival as a Surrogate Endpoint for Overall Survival in Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Oncology and therapy · 2025Article
- Review
- Use of surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment and reimbursement of treatments for the management of chronic kidney disease.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Multi-omics and Mendelian randomization identifyTranslational lung cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been widely conducted for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in oncology, but little attention has been given to the adequacy of reporting and interpretation. This review evaluated the reporting quality of published meta-analyses on surrogacy evaluation and developed recommendations for future reporting.
methodsWe searched PubMed through August 2017 to identify studies that evaluated surrogate endpoints using the meta-analyses of RCTs in oncology. Both individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD) meta-analyses were included for the review.
resultsEighty meta-analyses were identified: 22 used IPD and 58 used AD from multiple RCTs. We observed variability and reporting deficiencies in both IPD and AD meta-analyses, especially on reporting of trial selection, endpoint definition, study and patient characteristics for included RCTs, and important statistical methods and results. Based on these findings, we proposed a checklist and recommendations to improve completeness, consistency, and transparency of reports of meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation. We highlighted key aspects of the design and analysis of surrogate endpoints and presented explanations and rationale why these items should be clearly reported in surrogacy evaluation.
conclusionsOur reporting of surrogate endpoint evaluation using meta-analyses (ReSEEM) guidelines and recommendations will improve the quality in reporting and facilitate the interpretation and reproducibility of meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation. Also, they should help promote greater methodological consistency and could also serve as an evaluation tool in the peer review process for assessing surrogacy research.
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.