Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Aug 18:341:c3920.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3920.

Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review

Gloria Cordoba  1 , Lisa Schwartz, Steven Woloshin, Harold Bae, Peter C Gøtzsche
Affiliations

Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review

Gloria Cordoba et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To study how composite outcomes, which have combined several components into a single measure, are defined, reported, and interpreted.

Design: Systematic review of parallel group randomised clinical trials published in 2008 reporting a binary composite outcome. Two independent observers extracted the data using a standardised data sheet, and two other observers, blinded to the results, selected the most important component.

Results: Of 40 included trials, 29 (73%) were about cardiovascular topics and 24 (60%) were entirely or partly industry funded. Composite outcomes had a median of three components (range 2-9). Death or cardiovascular death was the most important component in 33 trials (83%). Only one trial provided a good rationale for the choice of components. We judged that the components were not of similar importance in 28 trials (70%); in 20 of these, death was combined with hospital admission. Other major problems were change in the definition of the composite outcome between the abstract, methods, and results sections (13 trials); missing, ambiguous, or uninterpretable data (9 trials); and post hoc construction of composite outcomes (4 trials). Only 24 trials (60%) provided reliable estimates for both the composite and its components, and only six trials (15%) had components of similar, or possibly similar, clinical importance and provided reliable estimates. In 11 of 16 trials with a statistically significant composite, the abstract conclusion falsely implied that the effect applied also to the most important component.

Conclusions: The use of composite outcomes in trials is problematic. Components are often unreasonably combined, inconsistently defined, and inadequately reported. These problems will leave many readers confused, often with an exaggerated perception of how well interventions work.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Flow chart for inclusion of trials
None
Fig 2 Example of a confusing presentation of a composite outcomew14
None
Fig 3 Selected examples of composite outcomes being handled well (“Do”) or poorly (“Don’t”)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:651-7. - PubMed
    1. Ross S. Composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials: arguments for and against. Am J Obstet gynecol 2007;196:119e1-6. - PubMed
    1. Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA 2003;289:2554-9. - PubMed
    1. Tomlinson G, Detsky AS. Composite end points in randomized trials: there is no free lunch. JAMA 2010;303:267-8. - PubMed
    1. Ferreira-Gonzalez I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Domingo-Salvany A, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, et al. Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2007;334:786. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms