Guidance for defining outcomes in clinical trials

Xiangji Ying, Tianjing Li, Joanne McKenzie, Matthew James Page, Kiran Ninan, Jean-Pierre Oberste, Colby J. Vorland, Andrew William Brown, Riaz Qureshi and Nicholas J DeVito
Additional contact information
Matthew James Page: Monash University
Andrew William Brown: Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington

No 5wrsm_v1, MetaArXiv from Center for Open Science

Abstract: Defining outcomes completely before conducting clinical trials helps to mitigate reporting biases; however, there is limited guidance to help investigators define outcomes completely. We aimed to develop a structured approach for defining trial outcomes completely and consistently. We reviewed literature, developed preliminary rules for defining outcomes, and refined them iteratively. We randomly selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ClinicalTrials.gov that registered before their start dates and posted results by January 4, 2024. The 225 included RCTs evaluated 3,424 outcomes. Two raters independently applied preliminary rules to define each outcome. When raters encountered outcomes they could not define, we refined the rules. We continued this process until no further changes were needed. We discussed and finalized our approach in a consensus meeting. We define an “outcome” as a value for each participant that will be used in analysis to generate study results. A complete outcome definition includes six elements: outcome domain, specific measurement, specific metric, cutoff, variable type, and timepoint. We developed rules for naming specific measurements for both subjective and objective outcomes. We expanded on prior work by developing more comprehensive categories for specific metrics. We introduced "cutoff" as a distinct element with three subelements. To clarify the boundary between outcome definitions and statistical methods, we replaced a previously described element, "method of aggregation," with "variable type," which refers to whether the value for each individual is continuous or categorical. Trialists and sponsors could use this approach alongside other guidelines to define outcomes in trial registrations, protocols, and result reports.

Date: 2026-03-31
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-exp and nep-hea
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/69c439142692055b6854d2d3/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:metaar:5wrsm_v1

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/5wrsm_v1

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MetaArXiv from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().