Maximizing value and minimizing waste in clinical trials in swine: Selecting outcomes to build an evidence base

Abstract

Researchers planning clinical trials should identify the primary trial outcome and adequately power the trial to detect clinically meaningful differences in this outcome. All primary and secondary outcomes and their measurement should be comprehensively described, and their results reported. There is evidence that trials on the same subject use different outcomes or measure the same outcome in different ways, making it difficult to compare intervention effectiveness across clinical trials. Consensus development of core outcome sets could improve consistency in outcome measures used across trials and aid in development of an evidence-based body of literature on intervention effectiveness in swine populations.

The Value of Evidence Synthesis in Animal Sciences: A Discussion and Call to Action

“…17 Outcomes operate at different levels of specificity and across domains: for example, research in production animals may consider outcomes ranging from health, production, and welfare. 18 Conceptual outcomes focus on one aspect of the domain such as meat-related parameters in relation to production. Outcomes also may be described with varying levels of granularity.…”

A sounder of swine: The importance of clustering in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials

“…1 However, there is evidence from the published research that trial design, conduct, and analysis is suboptimal in swine trials. [2][3][4] Previous commentaries in this series have discussed accessibility of research reports, 5 issues relating to selection of interventions and outcomes, 6,7 and reducing risk of bias 8 to maximize the value of swine trial research. In this commentary, we focus on the issue of clustering.…”