Interpreting composite outcomes in trials

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 341, Issue 7769, 2010, Pages 354-

  Freemantle, Nick ^a   Calvert, Melanie J ^a  

^a Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRONEDARONE;

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; EDITORIAL; HEART ATRIUM FIBRILLATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956113614     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c3529     Document Type: Editorial

References (12)

1. Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 2003;289:2554. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
2. Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ 2010;341:c3920. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
3. Hohnloser SH, Crijns HJGM, van Eickels M, Gaudin C, Page RL, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Effect of dronedarone on cardiovascular events in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009;360:668-78. [Abstract/FREE Full text]
4. Sanofi Aventis. Multaq/dronedarone US marketing authorisation. http://products.sanofi-aventis.us/Multaq/Multaq.pdf.
5. Freemantle N. Interpreting the results of secondary end points and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: should we lock the crazy aunt in the attic? BMJ 2001;322:989. [FREE Full text]
6. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65. [Abstract/FREE Full text] (Pubitemid 38669189)
7. Packer M. Proposal for a new clinical end point to evaluate the efficacy of drugs and devices in the treatment of chronic heart failure. J Cardiac Fail 2001;7:176-82. [CrossRef] [Medline] [Web of Science] (Pubitemid 32554111)
8. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials E9. 1998. www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA485.pdf.
9. Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:651-7. [CrossRef] [Medline] (Pubitemid 46901008)
10. Freemantle N, Calvert M. Weighing the pros and cons for composite outcomes in clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:658-9. [CrossRef] [Web of Science] (Pubitemid 46891763)
11. Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Composite endpoints in clinical trials: the trees and the forest. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:660-1. [CrossRef] [Web of Science] (Pubitemid 46901007)
12. Montori VM, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Busse JW, Pacheco-Huergo V, Bryant D, et al. Validity of composite end points in clinical trials. BMJ 2005;330:594-6. [FREE Full text] (Pubitemid 40380357)