Outcome measures for randomised clinical trials and multicentre observational studies of cardiovascular diseases published in major clinical journals: systematic review and evidence mapping
Abstract
Background Outcome measure choice and definition can determine the result of the study. We describe outcome measures and their definitions for cardiovascular studies in highly cited medical journals. Methods Cardiovascular phase III or IV randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or multicentre observational studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet or Journal of the American Medical Association between 1 January 2013 and 6 June 2024 from Embase and Ovid Medline were included. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted the primary and secondary outcome measures from each publication. Results 386 studies (83% RCTs; 17% observational) representing 10 699 147 participants were included. Studies investigated coronary heart disease (51%), cardiomyopathy/heart failure (22%), heart rhythm disease (15%), valvular heart disease (11%) and ‘other’ cardiovascular diseases (1%), with 45% investigating a device and 48% funded by industry. The most frequently reported primary outcome measure was a composite (63%), the most frequent component of which was myocardial infarction (58%). The use of a composite for the primary outcome measure increased from 49% of studies in 2013 to a peak of 85% in 2018. From 2013 to 2023, the median number of secondary outcome measures per study increased for RCTs (3–8) and observational studies (0–7). Definitions for cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke varied across the studies. Conclusions For…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 10 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.