Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2012
A comparison of statistical approaches for physician-randomized trials with survival outcomes.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Matching the green wave: growing season length determines embryonic diapause in roe deer.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Localized prostate cancer: An analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Breast and Prostate Cancer Data Quality and Patterns of Care study (CDC PoC-BP).Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Article
- A comparison of analytical strategies for cluster randomized trials with survival outcomes in the presence of competing risks.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
- Neighborhood Risk Factors for Recidivism: For Whom do they Matter?American journal of community psychology · 2021Observational
- Methods for dealing with unequal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials: A scoping review.PloS one · 2021Article
- Improving HIV service delivery for people who inject drugs in Kazakhstan: study protocol for the Bridge stepped-wedge trial.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study compares methods for analyzing correlated survival data from physician-randomized trials of health care quality improvement interventions. Several proposed methods adjust for correlated survival data; however the most suitable method is unknown. Applying the characteristics of our study example, we performed three simulation studies to compare conditional, marginal, and non-parametric methods for analyzing clustered survival data. We simulated 1000 datasets using a shared frailty model with (1) fixed cluster size, (2) variable cluster size, and (3) non-lognormal random effects. Methods of analyses included: the nonlinear mixed model (conditional), the marginal proportional hazards model with robust standard errors, the clustered logrank test, and the clustered permutation test (non-parametric). For each method considered we estimated Type I error, power, mean squared error, and the coverage probability of the treatment effect estimator. We observed underestimated Type I error for the clustered logrank test. The marginal proportional hazards method performed well even when model assumptions were violated. Nonlinear mixed models were only advantageous when the distribution was correctly specified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.