UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
A comparison of methods for analyzing a binary composite endpoint with partially observed components in randomized controlled trials
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Authors:
    Pham TM, White IR, Kahan BC, Morris TP, Stanworth SJ, Forbes G
  • Publication date:
    29/09/2021
  • Journal:
    Statistics in Medicine
  • Status:
    Accepted
  • Country:
    England
  • Language:
    English
  • Keywords:
    RCTs, compatibility, composite endpoints, missing data, multiple imputation
  • Notes:
    © 2021 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Composite endpoints are commonly used to define primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. A participant may be classified as meeting the endpoint if they experience an event in one or several components (eg, a favorable outcome based on a composite of being alive and attaining negative culture results in trials assessing tuberculosis treatments). Partially observed components that are not missing simultaneously complicate the analysis of the composite endpoint. An intuitive strategy frequently used in practice for handling missing values in the components is to derive the values of the composite endpoint from observed components when possible, and exclude from analysis participants whose composite endpoint cannot be derived. Alternatively, complete record analysis (CRA) (excluding participants with any missing components) or multiple imputation (MI) can be used. We compare a set of methods for analyzing a composite endpoint with partially observed components mathematically and by simulation, and apply these methods in a reanalysis of a published trial (TOPPS). We show that the derived composite endpoint can be missing not at random even when the components are missing completely at random. Consequently, the treatment effect estimated from the derived endpoint is biased while CRA results without the derived endpoint are valid. Missing at random mechanisms require MI of the components. We conclude that, although superficially attractive, deriving the composite endpoint from observed components should generally be avoided. Despite the potential risk of imputation model mis-specification, MI of missing components is the preferred approach in this study setting.
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers Show More
Author
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL
Author
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL
Author
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL
Author
Inst of Clinical Trials &Methodology
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by