Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of surrogate outcomes in randomized controlled trials for shoulder rotator cuff tears

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Surrogate outcomes are clinical endpoints that are used as substitutes for direct measures of how a patient feels, functions, or survives. The present study aims to analyze the impact of surrogate outcomes on the results of randomized controlled trials on shoulder rotator cuff tears disorders.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to rotator cuff tear conditions published up until 2021 were retrieved from the PubMed and ACCESSSS databases. The primary outcome of the article was considered a surrogate outcome when the authors used radiological, physiologic, or functional variables. The result of the article was considered positive when results supported the intervention based on the trial’s primary outcome. We recorded the sample size, the mean follow-up, and the type of funding. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 112 papers were included in the analysis. The mean sample size was 87.6 patients; mean follow-up period was 25.97 months. Thirty-six out of 112 RCTs used a surrogate outcome as a primary endpoint. More than half of papers using surrogate outcomes reported a positive finding (20 out of 36), while 10 out of 71 RCTs using patient-centered outcomes favored the intervention (14.08%, p < 0.001) [RR = 3.94 (95% CI 2.07–7.51)]. The mean sample size was smaller in trials using surrogate endpoints (75.11 vs 92.35 patients, respectively, p = 0.049), while the follow-up was shorter (14.12 m vs. 31.9 m, p < 0.001). Approximately 25% of the papers that reported surrogate endpoints (22.58%) were industry-funded projects.

Conclusions

The substitution of surrogate endpoints for patient-important outcomes in shoulder rotator cuff trials quadruplicates the chances of obtaining a favorable result that favors the analyzed intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR (2017) Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials 18:122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim C, Prasad V (2015) Cancer drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate end point and subsequent overall survival: an analysis of 5 years of US Food and Drug Administration Approvals. JAMA Intern Med 175:1992–1994. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rupp T, Zuckerman D (2017) Quality of life, overall survival, and costs of cancer drugs approved based on surrogate endpoints. JAMA Intern Med 177(2):276–277. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7761. (PMID: 27898978)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group (2001) Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:89–95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mcp.2001.113989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/surrogate-endpoint-resources-drug-and-biologic-development. Accessed 20 Jan 2022

  6. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G (1998) Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 280:254–257

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.20.2457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267:374–378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA et al (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3:e3081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003081

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hasenboehler EA, Choudhry IK, Newman JT, Smith WR, Ziran BH, Stahel PF (2007) Bias towards publishing positive results in orthopedic and general surgery: a patient safety issue? Patient Saf Surg 1:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-1-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith RK, Werling NJ, Dakin SG, Alam R, Goodship AE, Dudhia J (2013) Beneficial effects of autologous bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in naturally occurring tendinopathy. PLoS ONE 8:e75697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Treanor L, Frank RA, Cherpak LA, Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A, Salameh JP, Hallgrimson Z et al (2020) (2020) Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published. Eur Radiol 30:2964–2972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06568-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schneider P, Bransford R, Harvey E, Agel J (2019) Operative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures: has randomised control trial evidence changed practice patterns? BMJ Open 9:e031118. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031118

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hudgins JD, Fine AM, Bourgeois FT (2016) Effect of randomized clinical trial findings on emergency management. Acad Emerg Med 23:36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Franceschi F, Papalia R, Franceschetti E, Palumbo A, Del Buono A, Paciotti M et al (2016) Double-row repair lowers the retear risk after accelerated rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 44:948–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515623031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lapner P, Li A, Pollock JW, Zhang T, McIlquham K, McRae S et al (2021) Multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing single-row with double-row fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med 49:3021–3029. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211029029

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Johannsen AM, Arner JW, Elrick BP, Nolte PC, Rakowski DR, Horan MP et al (2021) Minimum 10-year outcomes of primary arthroscopic transosseous-equivalent double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 49:2035–2041. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211015419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Svensson S, Menkes DB, Lexchin J (2013) Surrogate outcomes in clinical trials: a cautionary tale. JAMA Intern Med 173(8):611–612. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.3037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zumstein MA, Rumian A, Lesbats V, Schaer M, Boileau P (2014) Increased vascularization during early healing after biologic augmentation in repair of chronic rotator cuff tears using autologous leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF): a prospective randomized controlled pilot trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Barber FA, Burns JP, Deutsch A, Labbé MR, Litchfield RB (2012) A prospective, randomized evaluation of acellular human dermal matrix augmentation for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 28:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.06.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodeo SA, Delos D, Williams RJ, Adler RS, Pearle A, Warren RF (2012) The effect of platelet-rich fibrin matrix on rotator cuff tendon healing: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Am J Sports Med 40:1234–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512442924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bryant D, Holtby R, Willits K, Litchfield R, Drosdowech D, Spouge A et al (2016) A randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of rotator cuff repair with or without augmentation using porcine small intestine submucosa for patients with moderate to large rotator cuff tears: a pilot study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:1623–1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Packer M, Carver JR, Rodeheffer RJ, Ivanhoe RJ, DiBianco R, Zeldis SM et al (1991) Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure. The PROMISE Study Research Group. N Engl J Med 325:1468–1475. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199111213252103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lamas JR, García-Fernández C, Tornero-Esteban P, Lópiz Y, Rodriguez-Rodriguez L, Ortega L et al (2019) Adverse effects of xenogenic scaffolding in the context of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study for repairing full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Trials 20:387. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3504-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedics & Trauma Department, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Institut d’Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT-CERCA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Spain

    Joan Miquel & M. Salomó-Domènech

  2. Orthopaedics & Trauma Department, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain

    F. Santana & C. Torrens

Authors
  1. Joan Miquel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Salomó-Domènech
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Santana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Torrens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Miquel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval:

The study protocol was approved by the research committee (2022/0541).

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miquel, J., Salomó-Domènech, M., Santana, F. et al. Impact of surrogate outcomes in randomized controlled trials for shoulder rotator cuff tears. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 6117–6122 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04911-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04911-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation