Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important

A case study in HIV/AIDS

Ian J. Saldanha, Tianjing Li, Cui Yang, Jill Owczarzak, Paula R. Williamson, Kay Dickersin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The usefulness of clinical trials and systematic reviews is compromised when they report different outcomes. We compared outcomes in reviews of HIV/AIDS and the trials included in the reviews. Study Design and Setting: We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS (as of June 2013) that included ≥1 trial and the trials that the reviews included. We compared outcomes within subgroups defined by type of intervention: clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services. Results: We included 84 reviews that encompassed 524 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial (8) and per review (7.5) was similar, the trials reported a considerably greater number of unique outcomes than the reviews (779 vs. 218), ranging from 2.3 times greater (clinical management) to 5.4 times greater (behavioral prevention). High proportions of trial outcomes were not in any review: 68% (clinical management) to 83% (behavioral prevention). Lower proportions of review outcomes were not in any trial: 11% (clinical management) to 39% (health services). Conclusion: Outcomes in trials and reviews are not well aligned for appropriate inclusion of trial results in reviews and meta-analyses. Differences in perspectives, goals, and constraints between trialists and reviewers may explain differences in outcomes they consider important.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Health Services
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Clinical Trials
HIV
Meta-Analysis

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Core outcome sets
  • HIV/AIDS
  • Outcome selection
  • Outcomes
  • Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

@article{db23ca48c0a841619038d66ce1a59586,
title = "Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: A case study in HIV/AIDS",
abstract = "Background: The usefulness of clinical trials and systematic reviews is compromised when they report different outcomes. We compared outcomes in reviews of HIV/AIDS and the trials included in the reviews. Study Design and Setting: We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS (as of June 2013) that included ≥1 trial and the trials that the reviews included. We compared outcomes within subgroups defined by type of intervention: clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services. Results: We included 84 reviews that encompassed 524 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial (8) and per review (7.5) was similar, the trials reported a considerably greater number of unique outcomes than the reviews (779 vs. 218), ranging from 2.3 times greater (clinical management) to 5.4 times greater (behavioral prevention). High proportions of trial outcomes were not in any review: 68{\%} (clinical management) to 83{\%} (behavioral prevention). Lower proportions of review outcomes were not in any trial: 11{\%} (clinical management) to 39{\%} (health services). Conclusion: Outcomes in trials and reviews are not well aligned for appropriate inclusion of trial results in reviews and meta-analyses. Differences in perspectives, goals, and constraints between trialists and reviewers may explain differences in outcomes they consider important.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Core outcome sets, HIV/AIDS, Outcome selection, Outcomes, Systematic reviews",
author = "Saldanha, {Ian J.} and Tianjing Li and Cui Yang and Jill Owczarzak and Williamson, {Paula R.} and Kay Dickersin",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.005",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important

T2 - A case study in HIV/AIDS

AU - Saldanha, Ian J.

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Yang, Cui

AU - Owczarzak, Jill

AU - Williamson, Paula R.

AU - Dickersin, Kay

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Background: The usefulness of clinical trials and systematic reviews is compromised when they report different outcomes. We compared outcomes in reviews of HIV/AIDS and the trials included in the reviews. Study Design and Setting: We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS (as of June 2013) that included ≥1 trial and the trials that the reviews included. We compared outcomes within subgroups defined by type of intervention: clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services. Results: We included 84 reviews that encompassed 524 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial (8) and per review (7.5) was similar, the trials reported a considerably greater number of unique outcomes than the reviews (779 vs. 218), ranging from 2.3 times greater (clinical management) to 5.4 times greater (behavioral prevention). High proportions of trial outcomes were not in any review: 68% (clinical management) to 83% (behavioral prevention). Lower proportions of review outcomes were not in any trial: 11% (clinical management) to 39% (health services). Conclusion: Outcomes in trials and reviews are not well aligned for appropriate inclusion of trial results in reviews and meta-analyses. Differences in perspectives, goals, and constraints between trialists and reviewers may explain differences in outcomes they consider important.

AB - Background: The usefulness of clinical trials and systematic reviews is compromised when they report different outcomes. We compared outcomes in reviews of HIV/AIDS and the trials included in the reviews. Study Design and Setting: We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS (as of June 2013) that included ≥1 trial and the trials that the reviews included. We compared outcomes within subgroups defined by type of intervention: clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services. Results: We included 84 reviews that encompassed 524 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial (8) and per review (7.5) was similar, the trials reported a considerably greater number of unique outcomes than the reviews (779 vs. 218), ranging from 2.3 times greater (clinical management) to 5.4 times greater (behavioral prevention). High proportions of trial outcomes were not in any review: 68% (clinical management) to 83% (behavioral prevention). Lower proportions of review outcomes were not in any trial: 11% (clinical management) to 39% (health services). Conclusion: Outcomes in trials and reviews are not well aligned for appropriate inclusion of trial results in reviews and meta-analyses. Differences in perspectives, goals, and constraints between trialists and reviewers may explain differences in outcomes they consider important.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Core outcome sets

KW - HIV/AIDS

KW - Outcome selection

KW - Outcomes

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016005077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016005077&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.005

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -