TY  - JOUR
T1  - Composite end points in randomized trials: There is no free lunch
AU  - Tomlinson G, Detsky AS
Y1  - 2010/01/20
N1  - 10.1001/jama.2009.2017
JO  - JAMA
SP  - 267
EP  - 268
VL  - 303
IS  - 3
N2  - 
An article reporting the results of a randomized trial contained the following sentence: “This large, prospective, blinded international clinical trial shows that 8 mg of rosiglitazone daily, together with lifestyle recommendations, substantially reduces the risk of diabetes or death by 60% in individuals at high risk for diabetes.”1 Taken alone, this statement offers little guidance to a clinician who is prescribing the drug, because death and diabetes are quite far apart in the spectrum of severity. Two questions arise: Was there a 60% reduction in both death and diabetes? Are the two outcomes just as likely to occur? To make a decision, a clinician needs more information on the individual components, and the article in question does indeed provide this information. But after reading the entire report, the clinician may ask a third question: Why did the clinical trial use the primary outcome of diabetes or death?

SN  - 0098-7484
M3  - doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.2017
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.2017
ER  -