ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2026
A patient-centric paradigm and tool for clinical research: the DOOR is open.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ceftazidime-avibactam as monotherapy or in combination for targeted treatment of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in ICUs: a comparative analysis through counterfactual framework and desirability of outcome ranking.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Observational
- Clinical trial endpoints for metabolic dysfunction and alcohol associated steatotic liver disease.Hepatology international · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating the benefits and harms of interventions and yet may not provide the evidence needed to inform medical decision-making, an ultimate goal for clinical research. Commonly used design and analysis approaches are often not suited to answer the most important questions to inform clinical practice, specifically how do resulting patient experiences, when comprehensively considering benefits and harms, compare between therapeutic alternatives? The standard approach of siloed analysis of one outcome at a time: (i) does not incorporate associations between multiple outcomes; (ii) does not recognize the cumulative nature of multiple outcomes in individual patients or recognize important gradations of global patient response; (iii) suffers from competing risk complexities during interpretation of individual outcomes; (iv) provides for ambiguous generalizability with respect to benefit:risk since efficacy and safety analyses are often conducted on different populations. Evaluation of treatment effect heterogeneity to identify subgroups for treatment or avoidance of treatment is typically evaluated based on a single efficacy or safety endpoint and rarely evaluated based on the overall benefit:risk. Methods that quantify and compare the patient experience are needed. The desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, monitoring, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of clinical trials and other research studies based on patient-centric benefit:risk evaluation, developed to address these issues and advance clinical trial science. Aligning the clinical research strategy with the relevant question for clinical practice will enhance research applicability. Careful design and comprehensive analyses are critical for DOOR paradigm application. We provide a recommended statistical analysis plan for research studies implementing DOOR, describe its elements, and illustrate analysis application using examples. A freely available online tool for the recommended analyses and the design of studies implementing the DOOR paradigm is provided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.