Endpoint selection and relative (versus absolute) risk reporting in published medication trials

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1246-1252

  Hochman, Michael ^a   McCormick, Danny ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE   (United States)

Author keywords

composite endpoints; disease specific mortality; relative risk reduction; surrogate endpoints

Indexed keywords

ABSOLUTE RISK; ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CONTROLLED STUDY; FUNDING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MORTALITY; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK; RISK FACTOR;

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; JOURNALISM, MEDICAL; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR;

EID: 80755180910     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: 15251497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1813-7     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. HC Kraemer E Frank 2010 Evaluation of comparative treatment trials: assessing clinical benefits and risks for patients, rather than statistical effects on measures JAMA 304 6 683 4 20699462 10.1001/jama.2010.1133 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhtVeltLzM
2. HM Krumholz TH Lee 2008 Redefining quality-implications of recent clinical trials N Engl J Med 358 24 2537 9 18539915 10.1056/NEJMp0803740 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXnt1Wjs70%3D (Pubitemid 351831354)
3. L Bero F Oostvogel P Bacchetti K Lee 2007 Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others PLoS Med 4 6 e184 17550302 10.1371/journal.pmed. 0040184 (Pubitemid 46998618)
4. PM Ridker J Torres 2006 Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005 JAMA 295 19 2270 4 16705108 10.1001/jama.295.19.2270 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD28Xksl2ktrs%3D (Pubitemid 43736577)
5. JL la Cour J Brok PC Gøtzsche 2010 Inconsistent reporting of surrogate outcomes in randomised clinical trials: cohort study BMJ 341 c3653 20719823 10.1136/bmj.c3653
6. TR Fleming DL DeMets 1996 Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 125 7 605 13 8815760 1:STN:280: DyaK28zovFWrtA%3D%3D (Pubitemid 126450094)
7. N Freemantle M Calvert J Wood J Eastaugh C Griffin 2003 Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 289 19 2554 9 12759327 10.1001/jama.289.19.2554 (Pubitemid 37430157)
8. RW Yeh AS Go 2010 Rethinking the epidemiology of acute myocardial infarction: challenges and opportunities Arch Intern Med 170 9 759 64 20458082 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.88
9. I Ferreira-González JW Busse D Heels-Ansdell VM Montori EA Akl DM Bryant P Alonso-Coello J Alonso A Worster S Upadhye R Jaeschke HJ Schünemann G Permanyer-Miralda V Pacheco-Huergo A Domingo-Salvany P Wu EJ Mills GH Guyatt 2007 Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials BMJ 334 7597 786 17403713 10.1136/bmj.39136.682083.AE (Pubitemid 46650123)
10. N Freemantle MJ Calvert 2010 Interpreting composite outcomes in trials BMJ 341 c3529 20719822 10.1136/bmj.c3529
11. G Cordoba L Schwartz S Woloshin H Bae PC Gøtzsche 2010 Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review BMJ 341 c3920 20719825 10.1136/bmj.c3920
12. WC Black DA Haggstrom HG Welch 2002 All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening J Natl Cancer Inst 94 3 167 73 11830606 (Pubitemid 34162750)
13. A Laupacis DL Sackett RS Roberts 1988 An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment N Engl J Med 318 1728 33 3374545 10.1056/NEJM198806303182605 1:STN:280:DyaL1c3jt1ynug%3D%3D
14. J Nuovo J Melnikow D Chang 2002 Reporting number needed to treat and absolute risk reduction in randomized controlled trials JAMA 287 21 2813 4 12038920 10.1001/jama.287.21.2813 (Pubitemid 34591971)
15. KG Marshall 1996 Prevent: how much harm? How much benefit? 1. Influence of reporting methods on perception of benefits CMAJ 154 10 1493 9 8624999 1:STN:280:DyaK283hs12mtQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 26154051)
16. E Lim A Brown A Helmy S Mussa DG Altman 2008 Composite outcomes in cardiovascular research: a survey of randomized trials Ann Intern Med 149 9 612 7 18981486
17. KE Kip K Hollabaugh OC Marroquin DO Williams 2008 The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention J Am Coll Cardiol 51 7 701 7 18279733 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.034 (Pubitemid 351222738)
18. E Dryver JE Hux 2002 Reporting of numerical and statistical differences in abstracts: improving but not optimal J Gen Intern Med 17 3 203 6 11929506 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10114.x (Pubitemid 34603847)
19. LM Schwartz S Woloshin EL Dvorin HG Welch 2006 Ratio measures in leading medical journals: structured review of accessibility of underlying absolute risks BMJ 333 7581 1248 17060338 10.1136/bmj.38985.564317.7C (Pubitemid 46032354)
20. M Hochman D McCormick 2010 Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications JAMA 303 10 951 8 20215609 10.1001/jama.2010.240 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXjt1Cntrg%3D
21. Science journal citation reports ISI: Summer 2008. Thomson Reuters Web site. http://scientific.thomson.com/products/jcr/. Accessed July 5, 2011.
22. HC Bucher GH Guyatt DJ Cook A Holbrook FA McAlister 1999 How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points JAMA 282 8 771 8 10463714 10.1001/jama.282.8.771 1:STN:280:DyaK1MzptFemtw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 29404385)
23. Temple RJ. A regulatory authority's opinion about surrogate endpoints. In: Nimmo WS, Tucker GT, eds. Clinical Measurement in Drug Evaluation. New York: Wiley; 1995.
24. D Grady RF Redberg 2010 Less is more: how less health care can result in better health Arch Intern Med 170 9 749 50 20458080 10.1001/archinternmed.2010. 90
25. C Rosen 2010 Revisiting the rosiglitazone story - lessons learned NEJM 363 9 803 5 20660395 10.1056/NEJMp1008233 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXhtVyksbzJ
26. B Als-Nielsen W Chen C Gluud LL Kjaergard 2003 Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290 7 921 8 12928469 10.1001/jama.290.7.921 (Pubitemid 37430464)
27. LL Kjaergard B Als-Nielsen 2002 Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical studies published in the BMJ BMJ 325 7358 249 52 12153921 10.1136/bmj.325.7358.249 (Pubitemid 34864391)
28. JE Bekelman Y Li CP Gross 2003 Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review JAMA 289 4 454 65 12533125 10.1001/jama.289.4.454 (Pubitemid 36119966)
29. G Tomlinson AS Detsky 2010 Composite endpoints in randomized trials: there is no free lunch JAMA 303 3 267 8 20085955 10.1001/jama.2009.2017 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXptFSqtQ%3D%3D
30. Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Can one be confident that the component endpoints share similar relative risk reductions? Users' guides to the medical literature. Chapter 10.4. Composite Endpoints.
31. VM Montori G Permanyer-Miralda I Ferreira-González JW Busse V Pacheco-Huergo D Bryant J Alonso EA Akl A Domingo-Salvany E Mills P Wu HJ Schünemann R Jaeschke GH Guyatt 2005 Validity of composite endpoints in clinical trials BMJ 330 7491 594 6 15761002 10.1136/bmj.330.7491.594 (Pubitemid 40380357)
32. GH Guyatt DL Sackett DJ Cook 1993 Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 270 21 2598 601 8230645 10.1001/jama.270.21. 2598 1:STN:280:DyaK2c%2FkslGktg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 23346700)