The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities
Abstract
The conventional reporting of composite endpoints in clinical trials has an inherent limitation in that it emphasizes each patient's first event, which is often the outcome of lesser clinical importance. To overcome this problem, we introduce the concept of the win ratio for reporting composite endpoints. Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. Consider a primary composite endpoint, e.g. cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure hospitalization (HF hosp) in heart failure trials. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled a 'winner' or a 'loser' depending on who had a CV death first. If that is not known, only then they are labelled a 'winner' or 'loser' depending on who had a HF hosp first. Otherwise they are considered tied. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. A 95% confidence interval and P-value for the win ratio are readily obtained. If formation of matched pairs is impractical then an alternative win ratio can be obtained by comparing all possible unmatched pairs. This method is illustrated by re-analyses of the EMPHASIS-HF, PARTNER B, and CHARM trials. The win ratio is a new method for reporting composite endpoints, which is easy to use and gives appropriate priority to the more clinically important event, e.g. mortality. We encourage its use in future trial reports.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis in Patients Who Cannot Undergo Surgery
Leon, M. B., Smith, C. R., Mack, M., Miller, D. C., Moses, J. W., Svensson, L. G., Tuzcu, E. M., Webb, J. G., Fontana, G. P., Makkar, R. R., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1008232 · Cited by 7,205
Self-citationEplerenone in patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms
Zannad, F., McMurray, J. J. V., Krum, H., van Veldhuisen, D. J., Swedberg, K., Shi, H., Vincent, J., Pocock, S. J., & Pitt, B. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1009492 · Cited by 3,111
Self-citationPocock, S. J., Assmann, S. E., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1296 · Cited by 1,077
Self-citation
Cited by
Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients
Mack, M. J., Leon, M. B., Thourani, V. H., Makkar, R., Kodali, S. K., Russo, M., Kapadia, S. R., Malaisrie, S. C., Cohen, D. J., Pibarot, P., et al. (2019) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1814052 · Cited by 4,847
Self-citationTafamidis Treatment for Patients with Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy
Maurer, M. S., Schwartz, J. H., Gundapaneni, B., Elliott, P. M., Merlini, G., Waddington-Cruz, M., Kristen, A. V., Grogan, M., Witteles, R., Damy, T., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1805689 · Cited by 2,857
Yoon, S.-H., Bleiziffer, S., De Backer, O., Delgado, V., Arai, T., Ziegelmueller, J., Barbanti, M., Sharma, R., Perlman, G. Y., Khalique, O. K., et al. (2017) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.017 · Cited by 489
Lopes, R. D., de Barros e Silva, P. G. M., Furtado, R. H. M., Macedo, A. V. S., Bronhara, B., Damiani, L. P., Barbosa, L. M., de Aveiro Morata, J., Ramacciotti, E., de Aquino Martins, P., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01203-4 · Cited by 481
An introduction to multiplicity issues in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how
Li, G., Taljaard, M., Van den Heuvel, E. R., Levine, M. A., Cook, D. J., Wells, G. A., Devereaux, P. J., & Thabane, L. (2016) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyw320 · Cited by 381
Metadata
- Authors
- Pocock, S. J., Ariti, C. A., Collier, T. J., & Wang, D.
- Venue
- European Heart Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-09-06
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 176-182
- ISSN
- 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
- 1522-9645
- OpenAlex
- W2105084079
- Cited by
- 812
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352
- The paper
- Pocock, S. J., Ariti, C. A., Collier, T. J., & Wang, D. (2012). The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
