<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>outcome definitions &#8211; Science</title>
	<atom:link href="https://scienmag.com/tag/outcome-definitions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://scienmag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2026 23:52:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">73899611</site>	<item>
		<title>Six-part framework aims to clarify clinical trial outcomes</title>
		<link>https://scienmag.com/six-part-framework-aims-to-clarify-clinical-trial-outcomes/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ophelia Keating]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2026 23:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinical trial outcome assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinical trial outcome framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinical trial outcome reporting guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinical Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ClinicalTrials.gov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[estimands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methodological process for outcome framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcome clarity in clinical research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcome definitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcome measurement and metrics in clinical trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcome variable types and cutoffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[randomized controlled trial analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[randomized controlled trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refining clinical trial outcome frameworks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reporting bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[research methodology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standardized clinical trial outcome definition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured approach to clinical trial outcomes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial outcome prespecification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial protocols]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial registration]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://scienmag.com/?p=331135</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A methodology study developed and pilot-tested a six-element framework for defining clinical trial outcomes completely and consistently.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Researchers have developed a six-element framework intended to help investigators define clinical trial outcomes completely and consistently. The guidance specifies that an outcome should include its domain, a specific measurement, a specific metric, a cutoff when applicable, a variable type and a time point. The study reported that this structure can help readers determine whether outcomes were prespecified and whether different trials assessed the same outcomes.</p>
<p>The framework was developed through a methodological process that began with a review of relevant literature. The researchers created preliminary guidance, then refined it through pilot testing. They randomly selected 225 randomized controlled trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, where they evaluated 3,424 outcomes.</p>
<p>Two raters followed a structured approach to defining each outcome. When they encountered an outcome that the draft guidance could not define, the researchers revised the guidance and repeated the process until no further changes were required. The final version was produced through multiple drafts and discussions among the authors.</p>
<p>One major revision separated what the earlier framework called the “method of aggregation” into two distinct elements: variable type and cutoff. The variable type indicates whether the value for each individual is continuous or categorical. Cutoff applies when relevant to the outcome and is described in greater detail through three sub-elements.</p>
<p>The authors also expanded prior work on naming specific measurements for both subjective and objective outcomes and developed more comprehensive categories for specific metrics. These changes are intended to make outcome definitions more precise while maintaining consistency with the estimand framework. The resulting guidance is designed for use by trialists and sponsors in trial registrations, protocols and results reports.</p>
<p>Its six elements provide a common structure for describing outcomes across different stages of a trial’s documentation. Instead, it presents and tests a definition-building approach, using 225 trials and 3,424 outcomes as its pilot-testing sample.</p>
<p><strong>Subject of Research:</strong> A six-element framework for defining outcomes in randomized controlled trials</p>
<p><strong>Article Title:</strong> Guidance for defining outcomes in clinical trials</p>
<p><strong>Article References:</strong> Ying, X., Li, T., McKenzie, J. E., Page, M. J., Ninan, K., Oberste, J.-P., Vorland, C. J., Brown, A. W., Qureshi, R., DeVito, N. J., Saldanha, I. J., Offringa, M., Butcher, N. J., Zhang, S., Nguyen, P.-Y., Menke, J., Lai, V. K. W., Kilicoglu, H., &amp; Mayo-Wilson, E. (2026). Guidance for defining outcomes in clinical trials. <em>PLOS Medicine, 23</em>(10), e1005275. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1005275" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1005275</a></p>
<p><strong>Image Credits:</strong> AI Generated</p>
<p><strong>DOI:</strong> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1005275" rel="noopener noreferrer">10.1371/journal.pmed.1005275</a></p>
<p><strong>Keywords:</strong> clinical trials, outcome definitions, randomized controlled trials, reporting bias, trial protocols, estimands, ClinicalTrials.gov, research methodology, trial registration, Guidance, defining, outcomes</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">331135</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
