Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Mar 14;18(1):122.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2.

Why Clinical Trial Outcomes Fail to Translate Into Benefits for Patients

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Why Clinical Trial Outcomes Fail to Translate Into Benefits for Patients

Carl Heneghan et al. Trials. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients' perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.

Keywords: Clinical outcomes; Composite outcomes; Core outcome sets; Publication bias; Reporting bias; Surrogate outcomes.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 36 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Rupp T, Zuckerman D. Quality of life, overall survival, and costs of cancer drugs approved based on surrogate endpoints. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:276–7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7761. - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO handbook for guideline developers. Geneva: WHO; 2012. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75146/1/9789241548441_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 11 Mar 2017.
    1. Tudur Smith C, Hickey H, Clarke M, Blazeby J, Williamson P. The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise. Trials. 2014;15:32. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-32. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Twaddell S. Surrogate outcome markers in research and clinical practice. Aust Prescr. 2009;32:47–50. doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2009.023. - DOI
    1. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7995. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback