Breaking down the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR): unpacking the methodology behind the Dalbavancin as an Option for Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia (DOTS) trial

<h2>Abstract</h2> Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) outcomes such as the primary outcome of the DOTS (Dalbavancin as an Option for Treatment of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Bacteremia) trial can improve statistical efficiency (requiring smaller sample sizes) compared to binary outcomes, and potentially improve clinical decision making by integrating treatment effects on all relevant clinical outcomes. However, standardised outcome components may not accurately capture the true hypothesised treatment effect, and bespoke DOOR outcomes may not be generalisable. Investigators should carefully consider different DOOR components when selecting trial outcomes and when performing sample size calculations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
CMI Communications
Published
2025-11-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmicom.2025.105154
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Breaking down the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR): unpacking the methodology behind the Dalbavancin as an Option for Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia (DOTS) trial

Jonas Tverring, Sean Wei Xiang Ong
CMI Communications
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Breaking down the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR): unpacking the methodology behind the Dalbavancin as an Option for Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteraemia (DOTS) trial

Jonas Tverring, Sean Wei Xiang Ong
article en

Abstract

<h2>Abstract</h2> Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) outcomes such as the primary outcome of the DOTS (Dalbavancin as an Option for Treatment of <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Bacteremia) trial can improve statistical efficiency (requiring smaller sample sizes) compared to binary outcomes, and potentially improve clinical decision making by integrating treatment effects on all relevant clinical outcomes. However, standardised outcome components may not accurately capture the true hypothesised treatment effect, and bespoke DOOR outcomes may not be generalisable. Investigators should carefully consider different DOOR components when selecting trial outcomes and when performing sample size calculations.

CMI CommunicationsVol. 3(1)
The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU), Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA), The University of Melbourne (AU), University of Toronto (CA), Lund University (SE), Health Sciences Centre (CA), Peter Doherty Institute (AU), Helsingborgs lasarett (SE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.