ArticleCancer research communications2024
Secondary Endpoint Utilization and Publication Rate among Phase III Oncology Trials.
Article in Cancer research communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How publish-or-perish culture drives evidence fragmentation in oncology.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design. SIGNIFICANCE: In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes).
Indexed as
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.