Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns
Do you wish to request the book?
Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns
2007
Overview
To investigate the rationale, potential problems and solutions of using composite endpoints (CEPs) for the assessment of intervention effects.
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.
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.
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.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier,Elsevier Limited
