Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33719711›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2021

Validity of Surrogate Endpoints and Their Impact on Coverage Recommendations: A Retrospective Analysis across International Health Technology Assessment Agencies.

Oriana Ciani, Bogdan Grigore, Hedwig Blommestein, Saskia de Groot, Meilin Möllenkamp, Stefan Rabbe, Rita Daubner-Bendes, Rod S Taylor

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Oriana CianiCentre for Research on Health and Social Care Management, SDA Bocconi, Milan, Lombardia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3607-0508
Bogdan GrigoreEvidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, Devon, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4241-7595
Hedwig BlommesteinInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Saskia de GrootInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Meilin MöllenkampHamburg Center for Health Economics, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Stefan RabbeHamburg Center for Health Economics, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Rita Daubner-BendesSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Rod S TaylorEvidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, Devon, UK.
University of Exeter · GBErasmus University Rotterdam · NLUniversität Hamburg · DEMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurrogate endpoints (i.e., intermediate endpoints intended to predict for patient-centered outcomes) are increasingly common. However, little is known about how surrogate evidence is handled in the context of health technology assessment (HTA).

objectives1) To map methodologies for the validation of surrogate endpoints and 2) to determine their impact on acceptability of surrogates and coverage decisions made by HTA agencies.

methodsWe sought HTA reports where evaluation relied on a surrogate from 8 HTA agencies. We extracted data on the methods applied for surrogate validation. We assessed the level of agreement between agencies and fitted mixed-effects logistic regression models to test the impact of validation approaches on the agency's acceptability of the surrogate endpoint and their coverage recommendation.

resultsOf the 124 included reports, 61 (49%) discussed the level of evidence to support the relationship between the surrogate and the patient-centered endpoint, 27 (22%) reported a correlation coefficient/association measure, and 40 (32%) quantified the expected effect on the patient-centered outcome. Overall, the surrogate endpoint was deemed acceptable in 49 (40%) reports (

conclusionsHandling of surrogate endpoint evidence in reports varied greatly across HTA agencies, with inconsistent consideration of the level of evidence and statistical validation. Our findings call for careful reconsideration of the issue of surrogacy and the need for harmonization of practices across international HTA agencies.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalBiomarkersHumansRetrospective StudiesBiomarkershealth technology assessmentoutcomes researchsurrogatevalidation

Identifiers

PMID33719711
PMCPMC8108112
OpenAlexW3124343193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.