Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38559746›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024

Adjudication of a primary trial outcome: Results of a calibration exercise and protocol for a large international trial.

Deborah Cook, Adam Deane, Joanna C Dionne, François Lauzier, John C Marshall, Yaseen M Arabi, M Elizabeth Wilcox, Marlies Ostermann, Abdulrahman Al-Fares, Diane Heels-Ansdell and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03374800 (Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT03374800 phase3completednot on this map

Re-EValuating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions: Prophylaxis Against Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Critically Ill (The REVISE) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2018 to 2024Enrolled4,800ConditionsGastrointestinal Hemorrhage (Clinically Important, Upper)ArmsPlacebo (0.9% saline), Pantoprazole
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Risk Factors for Patient-Important Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    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

14 authors.

Deborah CookMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Adam DeaneUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Joanna C DionneMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
François LauzierUniversité Laval, Québec City, Canada.
John C MarshallUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Yaseen M ArabiKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center and King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
M Elizabeth WilcoxUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Marlies OstermannKing's College, London, United Kingdom.
Abdulrahman Al-FaresAl-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Diane Heels-AnsdellMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Nicole ZytarukMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Simon FinferThe George Institute, Sydney, Australia.
REVISE Investigators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments. Methods: Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses' notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center). Results: Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated. Conclusions: Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial. Registration: NCT03374800 (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions).

Indexed as

AdjudicationClinical trialsCritical careGastrointestinal bleeding

Identifiers

PMID38559746
PMCPMC10979133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.