Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Inconsistent reporting of surrogate outcomes in randomised clinical trials: cohort study

Jeppe Lerche la Cour, Jesper Brok and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Vol. 341, No. 7769 (21 August 2010), p. 380
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20766151
Page Count: 1
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Preview not available

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION Do authors of randomised clinical trials convey the fact that they have used a surrogate outcome and do they discuss the surrogate's validity? SUMMARY ANSWER About one in five published randomised clinical trials uses a surrogate as a primary outcome, and only about one third of these trials report adequately on the use of a surrogate and its validity. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS Uncritical use of surrogate outcomes can be misleading and may have resulted in implementation of harmful interventions. Better reporting on surrogate outcomes is needed to avoid misleading conclusions and uncritical acceptance of new treatments.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
380
    380