Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21031144›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology2010

Nonparametric tests for right-censored data with biased sampling.

Jing Ning, Jing Qin, Yu Shen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Sample size calculations for prevalent cohort designs.Statistical methods in medical research · 2017
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jing NingDivision of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Texas, Houston, TX 77030, U.S.A.
Jing Qin
Yu Shen

Funding

STATISTICAL METHODS FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING STUDIESR01CA079466 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SHEN, YU · 1999 to 2014
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA079466
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Testing the equality of two survival distributions can be difficult in a prevalent cohort study when non random sampling of subjects is involved. Due to the biased sampling scheme, independent censoring assumption is often violated. Although the issues about biased inference caused by length-biased sampling have been widely recognized in statistical, epidemiological and economical literature, there is no satisfactory solution for efficient two-sample testing. We propose an asymptotic most efficient nonparametric test by properly adjusting for length-biased sampling. The test statistic is derived from a full likelihood function, and can be generalized from the two-sample test to a k-sample test. The asymptotic properties of the test statistic under the null hypothesis are derived using its asymptotic independent and identically distributed representation. We conduct extensive Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed test statistics and compare them with the conditional test and the standard logrank test for different biased sampling schemes and right-censoring mechanisms. For length-biased data, empirical studies demonstrated that the proposed test is substantially more powerful than the existing methods. For general left-truncated data, the proposed test is robust, still maintains accurate control of type I error rate, and is also more powerful than the existing methods, if the truncation patterns and right-censoring patterns are the same between the groups. We illustrate the methods using two real data examples.

Identifiers

PMID21031144
PMCPMC2963462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.