Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact Login    Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Users Online: 1139 


 
Table of Contents   
LETTER TO THE EDITOR  
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 369
Primary outcome in a randomized controlled trial: A critical issue


1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
2 Department of Surgery, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication6-Sep-2011
 

How to cite this article:
Choudhary D, Garg PK. Primary outcome in a randomized controlled trial: A critical issue. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2011;17:369

How to cite this URL:
Choudhary D, Garg PK. Primary outcome in a randomized controlled trial: A critical issue. Saudi J Gastroenterol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2022 Dec 9];17:369. Available from: https://www.saudijgastro.com/text.asp?2011/17/5/369/84504


Sir

We read the original article titled "Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a comparison of primary outcome measures" by Khalil et al., [1] with great interest.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are principal tools to identify effectiveness of one treatment over another as they bestow least biased estimates of treatment effects. [2] Absence of selection bias and random distribution of confounding factors among different groups make these scientifically rigorous RCTs a preferred choice over case controlled studies. [3] Unfortunately, design of RCTs usually gets less attention than what it deserves. An RCT may involve a number of outcomes. It is of utmost importance to differentiate a primary outcome from a secondary outcome. Primary outcome (end point) is a very critical issue in the design of RCTs. A primary outcome is one which will be used to arrive at a decision on the overall result of the study. [4] Moreover, a primary outcome will also serve the basis to calculate the sample size for a particular RCT. So, a RCT must have only one primary outcome, which should be decided at the outset of the study.

Khalil et al., [1] involved a number of primary outcomes including operative duration, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. They have also not mentioned how sample size was calculated. In a review of 42 RCTs comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy, Sadr-Azodi et al. concluded that most of these RCTs had low quality. [5] They recommended that adherence to the CONSORT statement [6] and registration of the trial protocol are important tools to improve the quality of trials in the field of surgery.

 
   References Top

1.Khalil J, Muqim R, Rafique M, Khan M. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A comparison of primary outcome measures. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2011;17:236-40.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ. How to increase the value of randomised trials in COPD research. Eur Respir J 2009;34:552-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Fung EK, Loré JM Jr. Randomized controlled trials for evaluating surgical questions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:631-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Stanley K. Design of randomized controlled trials. Circulation 2007;115:1164-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
5.Sadr-Azodi O, Andrén-Sandberg A. The quality of randomized clinical trials in the field of surgery: Studies on laparoscopic versus open appendectomy as an example. Dig Surg 2009;26:351-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D; CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Pankaj K Garg
Department of Surgery, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, University of Delhi, Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.84504

Rights and Permissions



This article has been cited by
1 Suitability for e-health of non-pharmacological interventions in connective tissue diseases: scoping review with a descriptive analysis
Valentin Ritschl, Ricardo J O Ferreira, Eduardo José Ferreira Santos, Rúben Fernandes, Essi Juutila, Erika Mosor, Paulo Santos-Costa, Kim Fligelstone, Linda Schraven, Georg Stummvoll, Maria Salvador, Janet L Poole, Cornelia van den Ende, Carina Boström, Tanja A Stamm
RMD Open. 2021; 7(2): e001710
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Assessing the Quality of Abstracts in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High Impact Cardiovascular Journals
Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Asim Shaikh, Rohan Kumar Ochani, Tauseef Akhtar, Kaneez Fatima, Safi U. Khan, Farouk Mookadam, M. Hassan Murad, Vincent M. Figueredo, Rami Doukky, Richard A. Krasuski
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2019; 12(5)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Randomized clinical trial of bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy versus total thyroidectomy for Gravesæ disease with a 5-year follow-up (Br J Surg 2012; 99: 515-522)
Garg, P.K.
British Journal of Surgery. 2012; 99(7): 1022-1023
[Pubmed]
4 Randomized clinical trial of bilateral subtotal thyroidectomy versus total thyroidectomy for Graves' disease with a 5-year follow-up (Br J Surg 2012; 99: 515–522)
P K Garg
British Journal of Surgery. 2012; 99(7): 1022
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
  
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2962    
    Printed102    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded665    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal