Survival End Point Reporting in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Review of Major Journals

Simone Mathoulin‐Pélissier · S. Gourgou-Bourgade · Franck Bonnetain · Andrew Kramar

123 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Oncology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

PURPOSE: Several publications showed that the standards for reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) might not be entirely suitable. Our aim was to evaluate the reporting of survival end points in cancer RCTs. METHODS: A search in MEDLINE databases identified 274 cancer RCTs published in 2004 in four general medical journals and four clinical oncology journals. Eligible articles were those that reported primary analyses of RCT with survival end points. Methodologists reviewed and scored the articles according to seven key points: prevalence of complete definition of survival end points (time of origin, survival events, censoring events) and relevant information about their analyses (estimation or effect size, precision, number of events, patients at risk). Concordance of key points was evaluated from a random subsample. RESULTS: After screening, 125 articles were selected; 104 trials were phase III (83%) and 98 publications (78%) were obtained from oncology journals. Among these RCTs, a total of 267 survival end points were recorded, and overall survival (OS) was the most frequent outcome (118 terms, 44%). Survival terms were totally defined for 113 end points (42%) in 65 articles (52%). Accurate information about analysis was retrieved for 73 end points (27%) in 40 articles (32%). The less well-defined information was the number of patients at risk (55%). The reliability was good (kappa = 0.72). Finally, according to the key points, optimal reporting was found in 33 end points (12%) or 10 publications. CONCLUSION: A majority of articles failed to provide a complete reporting of survival end points, thus adding another source of uncontrolled variability.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 123 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials 2005Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors 1982Reporting on Methods in Clinical Trials 2005Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors 2005Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals

Cited by

2011Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Sarcomas 2016Review of the Reporting of Survival Analyses within Randomised Controlled Trials and the Implications for Meta-Analysis 2014Importance of Transparent Reporting of Health Research 2011Reporting of loss to follow-up information in randomised controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes: a literature survey 2017Reporting and methodological quality of survival analysis in articles published in Chinese oncology journals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.