ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Composite end points and competing risks analysis.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Impact of GLP-1-Based Therapies on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- An Exact Match Outcome Analysis of Two Different Patches During Femoral Endarterectomy.World journal of surgery · 2026Observational
- Composite Primary Outcomes in Nephrology Clinical Trials.Kidney medicine · 2026Review
- Bovine Pericardial Versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Mid-Term Durability Outcomes.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- An Introduction to Competing Risks in Epidemiology.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Review
- International Benchmark Values for Robotic Right Hepatectomy: Multicenter Study From 22 Expert Centers.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Impact of non-significant right coronary ostial involvement on coronary events in type A aortic dissection surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Conflicts of interest in clinical practice: lessons learned from cardiovascular medicine.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Composite end points are common primary outcomes in clinical trials. Their main benefit of utilizing a composite outcome is increasing the number of primary outcome events, meaning fewer participants are required to deliver an adequately powered trial. By combining multiple important end points in the primary outcome rather than having to select only 1, composite end points potentially make clinically meaningful benefits easier to detect and avoid ranking outcomes hierarchically. However, there are a number of important considerations when designing and interpreting clinical trials that utilize composite end points. In this Statistical Primer, issues with composite end points such as competing events, halo effect, risk of bias, time-to-event limitations and the win ratio are discussed in the context of real world clinical trials.
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.