Trial reportOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.
Trial report in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. 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.
- What's Behind DOOR Number 2? Recent Applications From Post-Hoc Analyses of Infectious Diseases Randomized Clinical Trials.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A patient-centric paradigm and tool for clinical research: the DOOR is open.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Interagency Collaboration for Patient-Centered Antibacterial Drug Development.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR), a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on patient-centered benefit-risk evaluation, could help inform drug development for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Method: A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint, incorporating clinical response, infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality, and adapted this for ABSSSI. We retrospectively applied DOOR to 2 previous ABSSSI randomized controlled registrational trials (OASIS-1 and OASIS-2), both comparing omadacycline with linezolid. We evaluated the DOOR distribution and estimated the probability of having a more desirable outcome with omadacycline compared with linezolid. For OASIS-2, we used the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2) scores as a "tiebreaker" for participants who would otherwise have the same DOOR outcome. We performed DOOR component, partial credit, and subgroup analyses. Results: The ABSSSI DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment arms for OASIS-1 and OASIS-2. The probability of a more desirable outcome for a participant treated with omadacycline, compared with linezolid, was 50.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.4%-53.7%) and 52.1% (95% CI, 49.2%-55.0%) in OASIS-1 and OASIS-2, respectively. In OASIS-2, applying a health-related quality-of-life score as a tiebreaker did not significantly change the DOOR probability. Partial credit and subgroup analyses demonstrated similar overall results. Conclusions: DOOR may provide additional perspective on benefit versus risk in individual patients in ABSSSI trials. Future trials using DOOR prospectively will continue inform how to incorporate patient-centered outcomes in ABSSSI trials.
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.