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.
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.
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 Effectiveness of Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to Treat Insomnia Disorder in US Adults: Nationwide Decentralized Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mental health · 2025Trial
- Habit degradation strategies promote faster early reductions in unhealthy snacking habit strength in intensive longitudinal randomised controlled trial.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- The need for further guidance on the handling of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a scoping review of the methodological literature.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.