Automated review 2019-02-14T06:10:34
- Article marked as usable but bot founds error. See entry in Articles in Review.
== Why are we highlighting that the primary outcome here is a composite outcome? The majority of our article reviews have composite outcomes that aren't described with the word "composite" like it is here. IMHO, the use of the word "or" in a string of unassociated outcomes indicates clearly enough that it's a composite outcome. Thoughts? --Tim Plante (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point. I think the word or is actually pretty good here, you're right. Composite is the standard term used in the literature, but I think it's probably always redundant. My dumb fear is that we leave off the or and suddenly it looks like there are multiple coprimary outcomes; but that's an unlikely thing. I'm rambling. I think it's fine to drop the composite part. --Dave Iberri (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)