Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32870460›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021

Methods for Employing Information About Uncertainty of Ascertainment of Events in Clinical Trials.

Yiming Chen, John Lawrence, H M James Hung, Norman Stockbridge

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. 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. Article
  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

4 authors.

Yiming ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA.
John LawrenceCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. john.lawrence@fda.hhs.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-9892-2753
H M James HungCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Norman StockbridgeDivision of Cardiology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUncertain ascertainment of events in clinical trials has been noted for decades. To correct possible bias, Clinical Endpoint Committees (CECs) have been employed as a critical element of trials to ensure consistent and high-quality endpoint evaluation, especially for cardiovascular endpoints. However, the efficiency and usefulness of adjudication have been debated.

methodsThe multiple imputation (MI) method was proposed to incorporate endpoint event uncertainty. In a simulation conducted to explain this methodology, the dichotomous outcome was imputed each time with subject-specific event probabilities. As the final step, the desired analysis was conducted based on all imputed data. This proposed method was further applied to real trial data from PARADIGM-HF.

resultsCompared with the conventional Cox model with adjudicated events only, the Cox MI method had higher power, even with a small number of uncertain events. It yielded more robust inferences regarding treatment effects and required a smaller sample size to achieve the same power.

conclusionsInstead of using dichotomous endpoint data, the MI method enables incorporation of event uncertainty and eliminates the need for categorizing endpoint events. In future trials, assigning a probability of event occurrence for each event may be preferable to a CEC assigning a dichotomous outcome. Considerable resources could be saved if endpoint events can be identified more simply and in a manner that maintains study power.

Indexed as

Research DesignClinical Trials as TopicUncertaintyAdjudicationDichotomous endpointEvent uncertaintyMultiple imputation

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.