Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34344435›Full record

SynthesisTrials2021

A systematic review of endpoint definitions in late phase pulmonary tuberculosis therapeutic trials.

N K Hills, J Lyimo, P Nahid, R M Savic, C Lienhardt, P P J Phillips

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Standards for clinical trials for treating TB.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

N K Hills *UCSF Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, San Francisco, California, USA.
J Lyimo *MDR-TB Coordinator-National TB and Leprosy Program, Ministry of Health, Dodoma, Tanzania.
P NahidUCSF Center for Tuberculosis, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
R M SavicUCSF Center for Tuberculosis, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
C LienhardtUnité Mixte Internationale TransVIHMI (UMI 233 IRD - U1175 INSERM - Université de Montpellier), Montpellier, France.
P P J PhillipsUCSF Center for Tuberculosis, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. Patrick.Phillips@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6336-7024

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafe, more efficacious treatments are needed to address the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, the current practice in TB therapeutics trials is to use composite binary outcomes, which in the absence of standardization may inflate false positive and negative errors in evaluating regimens. The lack of standardization of outcomes is a barrier to the identification of highly efficacious regimens and the introduction of innovative methodologies

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of trials designed to advance new pulmonary TB drugs or regimens for regulatory approval and inform practice guidelines. Trials were primarily identified from the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). Only trials that collected post-treatment follow-up data and enrolled at least 100 patients were included. Protocols and Statistical Analysis Plans (SAP) for eligible trials from 1995 to the present were obtained from trial investigators. Details of outcome data, both explicit and implied, were abstracted and organized into three broad categories: favorable, unfavorable, and not assessable. Within these categories, individual trial definitions were recorded and collated, and areas of broad consensus and disagreement were identified and described.

resultsFrom 2205 trials in any way related to TB, 51 were selected for protocol and SAP review, from which 31 were both eligible and had accessible documentation. Within the three designated categories, we found broad consensus in the definitions of favorable and unfavorable outcomes, although specific details were not always provided, and when explicitly addressed, were heterogeneous. Favorable outcomes were handled the most consistently but were widely variable with respect to specification. In some cases, the same events were defined differently by different protocols, particularly in distinguishing unfavorable from not assessable events. Death was often interpreted as conditional on cause. Patients who did not complete the study because of withdrawal or loss to follow-up presented a particular challenge to consistent interpretation and analytic treatment of outcomes.

conclusionsIn a review of 31 clinical trials, we found that outcome definitions were heterogeneous, highlighting the need to establish clearer specification and a move towards universal standardization of outcomes across pulmonary TB trials. The ICH E9 (R1) addendum provides guidelines for undertaking and achieving this goal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020197993 . Registration 11 August 2020.

Indexed as

Tuberculosis, PulmonaryHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34344435
PMCPMC8329622

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.