Are outcomes reported in surgical randomized trials patient-important? A systematic review and meta-analysis | Zendy

Sam Adie | Zendy; Ian A. Harris | Zendy; Justine M. Naylor | Zendy; Rajat Mittal | Zendy

AI Assistant Blog Pricing

Home ZAIA Blog

Open Access

Are outcomes reported in surgical randomized trials patient-important? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s) -

Sam Adie,

Ian A. Harris,

Justine M. Naylor,

Rajat Mittal

Publication year - 2017

Publication title -

canadian journal of surgery

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 0.609

H-Index - 64

eISSN - 1488-2310

pISSN - 0008-428X

DOI - 10.1503/cjs.010616

Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , meta analysis , medline , odds ratio , confidence interval , psychological intervention , physical therapy , psychiatry , political science , law

The dangers of using surrogate outcomes are well documented. They may have little or no association with their patient-important correlates, leading to the approval and use of interventions that lack efficacy. We sought to assess whether primary outcomes in surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more likely to be patient-important outcomes than surrogate or laboratory-based outcomes.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research