Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33936456›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2020

Identification of Common Data Elements from Pivotal FDA Trials.

Craig S Mayer, Nick Williams, Vojtech Huser

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Craig S MayerLister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communication, National Library of Medicine, NIH Bethesda, MD.
Nick WilliamsLister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communication, National Library of Medicine, NIH Bethesda, MD.
Vojtech HuserLister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communication, National Library of Medicine, NIH Bethesda, MD.
United States National Library of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is difficult to arrive at an efficient and widely acceptable set of common data elements (CDEs). Trial outcomes, as defined in a clinical trial registry, offer a large set of elements to analyze. However, all clinical trial outcomes is an overwhelming amount of information. One way to reduce this amount of data to a usable volume is to only use a subset of trials. Our method uses a subset of trials by considering trials that support drug approval (pivotal trials) by Food and Drug Administration. We identified a set of pivotal trials from FDA drug approval documents and used primary outcomes data for these trials to identify a set of important CDEs. We identified 76 CDEs out of a set of 172 data elements from 192 pivotal trials for 100 drugs. This set of CDEs, grouped by medical condition, can be considered as containing the most significant data elements.

Indexed as

Common Data ElementsUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationClinical Trials as TopicDrug ApprovalHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsResearch DesignUnited StatesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID33936456
PMCPMC8075437
OpenAlexW3158878086

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.