TY - JOUR
T1 - Interpretation of composite endpoints in urology
T2 - an analysis of citation quality
AU - Jacobsen, Frederik M
AU - Kvorning Ternov, Klara
AU - Nolsøe, Alexander B
AU - Østergren, Peter Busch
AU - Fode, Mikkel
AU - Sønksen, Jens
AU - Jensen, Christian Fuglesang S
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To investigate how urological studies using composite endpoints as the primary outcome were cited.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this quality analysis of citations, three randomized clinical trials each investigating oncological and non-oncological urology were selected for citation analysis based on pre-defined criteria. In total, 531 papers citing the selected studies were reviewed; citations were evaluated based on whether they correctly referred to the composite endpoint and if singleton endpoints were defined and/or discussed.RESULTS: Among the citations, 223/531 (42%) referred to the composite endpoint, of which 217/223 (97.3%) correctly cited the composite endpoint. However, only 91/217 (41.9%) defined and/or discussed the singleton endpoints of the composite endpoint. The lack of a validated instrument for citation analysis was a limitation of this study. Meanwhile, the main strength is the large number of individually analyzed citations.CONCLUSIONS: The composite endpoints of urological randomized clinical trials are generally cited without referring to the composite endpoint; when cited, the composite endpoints are described correctly. However, in most cases, without defining or discussing the singleton endpoints.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To investigate how urological studies using composite endpoints as the primary outcome were cited.MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this quality analysis of citations, three randomized clinical trials each investigating oncological and non-oncological urology were selected for citation analysis based on pre-defined criteria. In total, 531 papers citing the selected studies were reviewed; citations were evaluated based on whether they correctly referred to the composite endpoint and if singleton endpoints were defined and/or discussed.RESULTS: Among the citations, 223/531 (42%) referred to the composite endpoint, of which 217/223 (97.3%) correctly cited the composite endpoint. However, only 91/217 (41.9%) defined and/or discussed the singleton endpoints of the composite endpoint. The lack of a validated instrument for citation analysis was a limitation of this study. Meanwhile, the main strength is the large number of individually analyzed citations.CONCLUSIONS: The composite endpoints of urological randomized clinical trials are generally cited without referring to the composite endpoint; when cited, the composite endpoints are described correctly. However, in most cases, without defining or discussing the singleton endpoints.
KW - Humans
KW - Urology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129122971&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/21681805.2022.2058607
DO - 10.1080/21681805.2022.2058607
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 35403554
SN - 2168-1805
VL - 56
SP - 206
EP - 212
JO - Scandinavian Journal of Urology
JF - Scandinavian Journal of Urology
IS - 3
ER -