Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39971166›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2025

The need for further guidance on the handling of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a scoping review of the methodological literature.

Hadeel Hussein, Rod S Taylor, Anthony Muchai Manyara, Anthony Purvis, Richard Emsley, Rui Duarte, Valerie Wells, Yimin Jiang, Grace O Dibben

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Hadeel HusseinMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Electronic address: 2938706H@student.gla.ac.uk.
Rod S TaylorMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Anthony Muchai ManyaraMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Global Health and Ageing Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Anthony PurvisMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Richard EmsleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rui DuarteDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Saluda Medical Pty Ltd, Artarmon, New South Wales, Australia.
Valerie WellsMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Yimin JiangNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Grace O DibbenMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review current methodological guidance for handling and reporting of multiple outcomes (MOCs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND

settingA scoping review with bibliographic database searches including Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science up to January 16, 2025 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were articles that: (1) provide advice on the design, analysis, or reporting of RCTs using MOCs; and/or (2) discuss statistical approaches for handling MOCs in RCTs. Six specific websites were also checked for formal and reporting guidelines. Included articles were summarized using thematic analysis.

resultsSearches retrieved 1716 articles of which 123 were included with additional 25 articles from updated search. Eight additional articles were identified by the specific website search. Six main subthemes on methodological recommendations for using MOCs were identified from 74 of 123 articles (60%): (1) need to prespecify outcomes and analysis, (2) multiplicity adjustment, (3) power and sample size implications, (4) secondary outcomes multiplicity, (5) considerations of MOCs correlation, and (6) specific applications of MOCs. Recommendations on coprimary and composite outcomes were also identified, including their features, analyses methods, reporting, and challenges. Statistical methods for analyzing MOCs were discussed in 53 of 123 articles (43%), with the majority describing modifications of pre-existing statistical approaches.

conclusionCurrent recommendations on using MOCs in RCTs focus primarily on statistical considerations and trials of licensing drugs or medical devices. Areas for further methodological research and guidance include reporting of the rationale for the use and selection of MOCs in RCTs and considerations for trials undertaken in nonregulatory setting, including complex interventions.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignGuidelines as TopicHumansComplex interventionComposite outcomeMultiple endpointsMultiple outcomesMultiplicityRandomized clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID39971166
PMCPMC12289522

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.