Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Scandinavian Journal of Urology |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Pages (from-to) | 206-212 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| ISSN | 2168-1805 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2022 |
Keywords
- Randomized controlled trials
- citations
- composite endpoints
- endpoints
- urology
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Interpretation of composite endpoints in urology: an analysis of citation quality'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS