Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Breast Cancer | Methodology

Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists’ choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want

Authors: Shaun Treweek, Viviane Miyakoda, Dylan Burke, Frances Shiely

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Randomised trials support improved decision-making through the data they collect. One important piece of data is the primary outcome — so called because it is what the investigators decide is the most important. Secondary outcomes provide additional information to support decision-making. We were interested in knowing how important patients and healthcare professionals consider the outcomes (especially the primary outcome) measured in a selection of published trials.

Methods

The work had three stages: (1) We identified a body of late-stage trials in two clinical areas, breast cancer management and nephrology. (2) We identified the primary and secondary outcomes for these trials. (3) We randomly ordered these outcomes and presented them to patients and healthcare professionals (with experience of the clinical area), and we asked them to rank the importance of the outcomes. They were not told which outcomes trial authors considered primary and secondary.

Results

In our sample of 44 trials with 46 primary outcomes, 29 patients, one patient representative and 12 healthcare professionals together ranked the primary outcome as the most important outcome 13/46 times or 28%. Breast cancer patients and healthcare professionals considered the primary outcome to be the most important outcome for 8/21 primary outcomes chosen by trialists. For nephrology, the equivalent figure was 5/25. The primary outcome appeared in a respondent’s top 5 ranked outcomes 151/178 (85%) times for breast cancer and 225/259 (87%) times for nephrology even if the primary was not considered the most important outcome.

Conclusions

The primary outcome in a trial is the most important piece of data collected. It is used to determine how many participants are required, and it is the main piece of information used to judge whether the intervention is effective or not. In our study, patients and healthcare professionals agreed with the choice of the primary outcome made by trial teams doing late-stage trials in breast cancer management and nephrology 28% of the time.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Crowley E, Treweek S, Banister B, Breeman S, Chadburn M, Constable L, Cotton S, Duncan A, El Feky A, Gardner H, Goodman K, Lanz D, Mcdonald A, Ogburn E, Starr K, Stevens N, Fernie G. Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project. Trials. 2020;21:535.CrossRef Crowley E, Treweek S, Banister B, Breeman S, Chadburn M, Constable L, Cotton S, Duncan A, El Feky A, Gardner H, Goodman K, Lanz D, Mcdonald A, Ogburn E, Starr K, Stevens N, Fernie G. Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project. Trials. 2020;21:535.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.CrossRef Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122.CrossRef Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707.CrossRef Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Williamson P.R., Altman D.G., Bagley H, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;Suppl 3(18):280.CrossRef Williamson P.R., Altman D.G., Bagley H, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;Suppl 3(18):280.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?—a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials. 2013;14:21.CrossRef Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?—a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials. 2013;14:21.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kovesdy CP. Clinical trials in end-stage renal disease—priorities and challenges. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019;34:1084–9.CrossRef Kovesdy CP. Clinical trials in end-stage renal disease—priorities and challenges. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019;34:1084–9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Marlborough M, Whitehill J, Curran M, Kaitin KI. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22:117–24.CrossRef Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Marlborough M, Whitehill J, Curran M, Kaitin KI. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22:117–24.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cromm K, Fischer KI. Striking new path(way)s—how a conceptual model of patient outcomes can help us advance outcomes that matter to patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021;36:956–9.CrossRef Cromm K, Fischer KI. Striking new path(way)s—how a conceptual model of patient outcomes can help us advance outcomes that matter to patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021;36:956–9.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pardo-Hernandez H, Alonso-Coello P. Patient-important outcomes in decision-making: a point of no return. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:4–6.CrossRef Pardo-Hernandez H, Alonso-Coello P. Patient-important outcomes in decision-making: a point of no return. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:4–6.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Matvienko-Sikar K, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Devane D, Dodd S, Egan AM, et al. Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:19–28.CrossRef Matvienko-Sikar K, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Devane D, Dodd S, Egan AM, et al. Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:19–28.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists’ choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want
Authors
Shaun Treweek
Viviane Miyakoda
Dylan Burke
Frances Shiely
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06348-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue