Observational studyHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2018
Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials.
Observational study in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing Tools for the Efficient Design of Health Preference Studies: Taxonomy of Attributes and Prototype of an Attribute Library.The patient · 2025Review
- An Overview of Data Collection in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Review
- A Best-Worst Scaling Study of the General Population's Preferences for Activities in Living Arrangements for Persons With Dementia.The patient · 2024Article
- Reply: Composite endpoints in clinical trials - simplicity or perfection?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Improving Visualization Methods of Utility-Weighted Disability Outcomes for Stroke Trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Similar long-term outcome of dissimilar drug-eluting stents: is it time to change the assessment?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2021Article
- Review
- A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine patients' perspectives regarding composite endpoints and the utility patients put on possible adverse outcomes of revascularization procedures.
designIn the PRECORE study, a stated preference elicitation method Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for 8 component endpoints (CEs): need for redo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year, minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours, minor myocardial infarction (MI) with symptoms <3 months, recurrent angina pectoris, need for redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within 1 year, major MI causing permanent disability, major stroke causing permanent disability and death within 24 hours.
settingA tertiary PCI/CABG centre.
participantsOne hundred and sixty patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI or CABG.
main outcome measuresImportance weights (IWs).
resultsPatients considered need for redo PCI within 1 year (IW: 0.008), minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours (IW: 0.017), minor MI with symptoms <3 months (IW: 0.027), need for redo CABG within 1 year (IW: 0.119), recurrent angina pectoris (IW: 0.300) and major MI causing permanent disability (IW: 0.726) less severe than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.000). Major stroke causing permanent disability was considered worse than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.209). Ranking of CEs and the relative values attributed to the CEs differed among subgroups based on gender, age and educational level.
conclusionPatients attribute different weight to individual CEs. This has significant implications for the interpretation of clinical trial data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.