Composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials: arguments for and against

      Composite outcomes that combine a number of individual outcomes (such as types of morbidity) are frequently used as primary outcomes in obstetrical trials. The main argument for their use is to ensure that trials can answer important clinical questions in a timely fashion, without needing huge sample sizes. Arguments against their use are that composite outcomes may be difficult to use and interpret, leading to errors in sample size estimation, possible contradictory trial results, and difficulty in interpreting findings. Such problems may reduce the credibility of the research, and may impact on the implementation of findings. Composite outcomes are an attractive solution to help to overcome the problem of limited available resources for clinical trials. However, future studies should carefully consider both the advantages and disadvantages before using composite outcomes. Rigorous development and reporting of composite outcomes is essential if the research is to be useful.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Collins J.
        Which randomized controlled trials are relevant to clinical practice?.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 216-218
        • International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use
        ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: statistical principles for clinical trials.
        Stat Med. 1999; 18: 1905-1942
        • Zhang B.
        • Schmidt B.
        Do we measure the right end points?.
        J Pediatr. 2001; 138: 76-80
        • Freemantle N.
        • Calvert M.
        • Wood J.
        • Easthaugh J.
        • Griffin C.
        Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty?.
        JAMA. 2003; 289: 2554-2559
        • Montori V.
        • Permanyer-Miralda G.
        • Ferreira-Gonzalez I.
        • Busse J.
        • Pacheco-Huergo V.
        • Bryant D.
        • et al.
        Validity of composite end points in clinical trials.
        BMJ. 2005; 330: 594-596
        • Gensini G.
        • Conti A.
        The evaluation of the results of clinical trials: surrogate end points and composite end points.
        Minerva Med. 2004; 95: 71-75
        • Bhardwaj S.
        • Camacho F.
        • Derrow A.
        • Fleischer A.
        • Feldman S.
        Statistical significance and clinical relevance: the importance of power in clinical trials in dermatology.
        Arch Dermatol. 2004; 140: 1520-1523
        • Kirwan J.R.
        Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?.
        J Rheumatol. 2001; 28: 439-444
        • Hannah M.
        • Hannah W.
        • Hewson S.
        • Hodnett E.
        • Saigal S.
        • Willan A.
        • Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group
        Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial.
        Lancet. 2000; 356: 1375-1383
        • Guinn D.
        • Atkinson M.
        • Sullivan L.
        • Lee M.
        • MacGregor S.
        • Parilla B.
        • et al.
        Single vs weekly courses of antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2001; 286: 1581-1587
        • Crowther C.
        • Hiller J.
        • Doyle L.
        • Haslam R.
        • Australasian Collaborative Trial of Magnesium Sulphate (ACTOMgSO4) Collaborative Group
        Effect of magnesium sulfate given for neuroprotection before preterm birth: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 2669-2676
        • Hannah M.
        • Hannah W.
        • Hellmann J.
        • Hewson S.
        • Milner R.
        • Willan A.
        • Canadian Multicenter Postterm Pregnancy Trial Group
        Induction of labour as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in postterm pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial.
        N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 1587-1592
        • Rietberg C.C.
        • Elferink-Stinkens P.M.
        • Visser G.H.
        The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants.
        BJOG. 2005; 112: 205-209
        • Kotsaka A.
        Inappropriate use of randomized trials to evaluate complex phenomena: case study of vaginal breech delivery.
        BMJ. 2004; 329: 1039-1042
        • Glezerman M.
        Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 20-25
        • Whyte H.
        • Hannah M.
        • Saigal S.
        • Hannah W.
        • Hewson S.
        • Amankwah K.
        • et al.
        • Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group
        Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 193: 864-871
        • Finer N.
        • Craft A.
        • Vaucher Y.
        • Clark R.
        • Sola A.
        Post-natal steroids: short-term gain, long-term pain?.
        J Pediatr. 2000; 137: 9-13
        • Smith G.
        • Kingdom J.
        • Penning D.
        • Matthews S.
        Antenatal corticosteroids: is more better?.
        Lancet. 2000; 355: 251-252
      1. Available at: Accessed August 4, 2006

      2. NICHHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network. Available at: Accessed August 4, 2006

        • Anath C.V.
        • Vintzileos A.M.
        Magnesium sulfate for preterm neuroprotection.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 940
        • Crowther C.
        • Hiller J.
        • Doyle L.
        • Haslam R.
        • Australasian Collaborative Trial of Magnesium Sulphate (ACTOMgSO4) Collaborative Group
        Magnesium sulfate for preterm neuroprotection.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 941
        • Streiner D.L.
        • Norman G.R.
        Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York2006
        • Kitchen W.
        • Doyle L.
        • Ford G.
        • Rickards A.
        • Lissenden J.
        • Ryan M.
        Cerebral palsy in very low birth weight infants surviving to 2 years with modern perinatal care.
        Am J Periantol. 1987; 4: 29-35