ArticleEuropean heart journal2024
Centrally adjudicated vs. investigator-reported outcomes in randomized heart failure trials.
Article in European heart journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Covariate Adjustment for Cox Regression in Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- The potential of artificial intelligence in clinical trials.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with cancer.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHeart failure endpoints in cardiovascular outcome trials are commonly identified through centralized adjudication of investigator-reported events. It remains unclear whether central adjudication improves the accuracy of treatment effect estimates in terms of log[hazard ratios (HR)].
methodsData from seven cardiovascular outcome trials with >1000 patients that included centrally adjudicated heart failure outcomes were utilized to assess (i) the concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated heart failure and cardiovascular death events; (ii) rates of subsequent all-cause mortality following positively vs. negatively adjudicated heart failure events; and (iii) the correlation of log(HR) based on centrally adjudicated vs. investigator-reported events.
resultsPositive adjudication rates for investigator-reported events varied widely across trials, but were generally higher for cardiovascular death (range: 87.9%-99.2%) than for heart failure hospitalization (range: 61.6%-88.0%). The risk for subsequent all-cause death was similar for positively and negatively adjudicated heart failure hospitalizations. Log(HR) correlated well for cardiovascular death [R2 = .80, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.53-0.93] and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (R2 = .79, 95% CrI: 0.46-0.93), but less for heart failure hospitalization (R2 = .57, 95% CrI: 0.10-0.83).
conclusionsPositive adjudication rates were lower for heart failure events than cardiovascular death, but even negatively adjudicated heart failure events are prognostically important. Central adjudication of events did not alter the results (precision or estimated log(HR)), though some variation was observed, depending on the indication. The results suggest that the decision to pursue centralized adjudication of heart failure events in a specific trial may need to be individualized.
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.