Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32338610›Full record

ArticleEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2021

Statistical methods for composite endpoints.

Hironori Hara, David van Klaveren, Norihiro Kogame, Ply Chichareon, Rodrigo Modolo, Mariusz Tomaniak, Masafumi Ono, Hideyuki Kawashima, Kuniaki Takahashi, Davide Capodanno and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Letter: 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 · 2022
    Article
  15. 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 · 2022
    Article
  16. 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 · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Hironori HaraDepartment of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
David van Klaveren
Norihiro Kogame
Ply Chichareon
Rodrigo Modolo
Mariusz Tomaniak
Masafumi Ono
Hideyuki Kawashima
Kuniaki Takahashi
Davide Capodanno
Yoshinobu Onuma
Patrick W Serruys

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Composite endpoints are commonly used in clinical trials, and time-to-first-event analysis has been the usual standard. Time-to-first-event analysis treats all components of the composite endpoint as having equal severity and is heavily influenced by short-term components. Over the last decade, novel statistical approaches have been introduced to overcome these limitations. We reviewed win ratio analysis, competing risk regression, negative binomial regression, Andersen-Gill regression, and weighted composite endpoint (WCE) analysis. Each method has both advantages and limitations. The advantage of win ratio and WCE analyses is that they take event severity into account by assigning weights to each component of the composite endpoint. These weights should be pre-specified because they strongly influence treatment effect estimates. Negative binomial regression and Andersen-Gill analyses consider all events for each patient -rather than only the first event - and tend to have more statistical power than time-to-first-event analysis. Pre-specified novel statistical methods may enhance our understanding of novel therapy when components vary substantially in severity and timing. These methods consider the specific types of patients, drugs, devices, events, and follow-up duration.

Indexed as

Research DesignEndpoint DeterminationHumansRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID32338610
PMCPMC9724993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.