Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns

Ignacio Ferreira-González, Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda, Jason W. Busse, Dianne M. Bryant, Victor Manuel Montori, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Stephen D. Walter, Gordon H. Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

117 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the rationale, potential problems and solutions of using composite endpoints (CEPs) for the assessment of intervention effects. Study Design and Setting: This study is a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index, for publications appearing between 1980 and September 2005, and reviewed potentially informative textbooks. Eligible articles provided a commentary, analysis, or discussion of CEPs for any of the following areas: (1) rationale, (2) interpretation or meaning, (3) advantages, (4) limitations or conceptual problems, and (5) recommendations for use. Results: Seventeen articles and one textbook proved eligible. Decreases in sample size requirements and ability to assess the net effect of an intervention were the most commonly cited advantages. Authors noted the risk of misinterpretation when heterogeneity among components with respect to either patient importance or magnitude of treatment effects as the most salient disadvantage. There were discrepancies between authors concerning the usefulness of CEPs to avoid bias from competing risks and when the direction of the effect of therapy differs across components. Conclusion: Methodologists have given limited attention to CEPs and their views are sometimes contradictory. Further work is needed to establish the role of CEPs in research and in guiding clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)651-657
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume60
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2007

Fingerprint

Textbooks
MEDLINE
Sample Size
Publications
Therapeutics
Research
Direction compound

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Combined outcomes
  • Composite endpoints
  • Endpoints
  • Outcomes
  • Overview

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. / Ferreira-González, Ignacio; Permanyer-Miralda, Gaietà; Busse, Jason W.; Bryant, Dianne M.; Montori, Victor Manuel; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Walter, Stephen D.; Guyatt, Gordon H.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 60, No. 7, 07.2007, p. 651-657.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ferreira-González, I, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Busse, JW, Bryant, DM, Montori, VM, Alonso-Coello, P, Walter, SD & Guyatt, GH 2007, 'Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 651-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.020
Ferreira-González, Ignacio ; Permanyer-Miralda, Gaietà ; Busse, Jason W. ; Bryant, Dianne M. ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo ; Walter, Stephen D. ; Guyatt, Gordon H. / Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007 ; Vol. 60, No. 7. pp. 651-657.
@article{9894092d13cf429c8e8ee47516494090,
title = "Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns",
abstract = "Objective: To investigate the rationale, potential problems and solutions of using composite endpoints (CEPs) for the assessment of intervention effects. Study Design and Setting: This study is a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index, for publications appearing between 1980 and September 2005, and reviewed potentially informative textbooks. Eligible articles provided a commentary, analysis, or discussion of CEPs for any of the following areas: (1) rationale, (2) interpretation or meaning, (3) advantages, (4) limitations or conceptual problems, and (5) recommendations for use. Results: Seventeen articles and one textbook proved eligible. Decreases in sample size requirements and ability to assess the net effect of an intervention were the most commonly cited advantages. Authors noted the risk of misinterpretation when heterogeneity among components with respect to either patient importance or magnitude of treatment effects as the most salient disadvantage. There were discrepancies between authors concerning the usefulness of CEPs to avoid bias from competing risks and when the direction of the effect of therapy differs across components. Conclusion: Methodologists have given limited attention to CEPs and their views are sometimes contradictory. Further work is needed to establish the role of CEPs in research and in guiding clinical practice.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Combined outcomes, Composite endpoints, Endpoints, Outcomes, Overview",
author = "Ignacio Ferreira-Gonz{\'a}lez and Gaiet{\`a} Permanyer-Miralda and Busse, {Jason W.} and Bryant, {Dianne M.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Pablo Alonso-Coello and Walter, {Stephen D.} and Guyatt, {Gordon H.}",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "651--657",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns

AU - Ferreira-González, Ignacio

AU - Permanyer-Miralda, Gaietà

AU - Busse, Jason W.

AU - Bryant, Dianne M.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo

AU - Walter, Stephen D.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - Objective: To investigate the rationale, potential problems and solutions of using composite endpoints (CEPs) for the assessment of intervention effects. Study Design and Setting: This study is a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index, for publications appearing between 1980 and September 2005, and reviewed potentially informative textbooks. Eligible articles provided a commentary, analysis, or discussion of CEPs for any of the following areas: (1) rationale, (2) interpretation or meaning, (3) advantages, (4) limitations or conceptual problems, and (5) recommendations for use. Results: Seventeen articles and one textbook proved eligible. Decreases in sample size requirements and ability to assess the net effect of an intervention were the most commonly cited advantages. Authors noted the risk of misinterpretation when heterogeneity among components with respect to either patient importance or magnitude of treatment effects as the most salient disadvantage. There were discrepancies between authors concerning the usefulness of CEPs to avoid bias from competing risks and when the direction of the effect of therapy differs across components. Conclusion: Methodologists have given limited attention to CEPs and their views are sometimes contradictory. Further work is needed to establish the role of CEPs in research and in guiding clinical practice.

AB - Objective: To investigate the rationale, potential problems and solutions of using composite endpoints (CEPs) for the assessment of intervention effects. Study Design and Setting: This study is a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index, for publications appearing between 1980 and September 2005, and reviewed potentially informative textbooks. Eligible articles provided a commentary, analysis, or discussion of CEPs for any of the following areas: (1) rationale, (2) interpretation or meaning, (3) advantages, (4) limitations or conceptual problems, and (5) recommendations for use. Results: Seventeen articles and one textbook proved eligible. Decreases in sample size requirements and ability to assess the net effect of an intervention were the most commonly cited advantages. Authors noted the risk of misinterpretation when heterogeneity among components with respect to either patient importance or magnitude of treatment effects as the most salient disadvantage. There were discrepancies between authors concerning the usefulness of CEPs to avoid bias from competing risks and when the direction of the effect of therapy differs across components. Conclusion: Methodologists have given limited attention to CEPs and their views are sometimes contradictory. Further work is needed to establish the role of CEPs in research and in guiding clinical practice.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Combined outcomes

KW - Composite endpoints

KW - Endpoints

KW - Outcomes

KW - Overview

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250017219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250017219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.020

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 17573977

AN - SCOPUS:34250017219

VL - 60

SP - 651

EP - 657

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 7

ER -