ArticleStatistics in medicine2016
Estimating restricted mean treatment effects with stacked survival models.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stacked survival models for residual lifetime data.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Association of pretransplant and posttransplant program ratings with candidate mortality after listing.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2019Article
- The relationship between the C-statistic and the accuracy of program-specific evaluations.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2019Article
- "Open mesh" or "strictly selected population" recruitment? The experience of the randomized controlled MeMeMe trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The difference in restricted mean survival times between two groups is a clinically relevant summary measure. With observational data, there may be imbalances in confounding variables between the two groups. One approach to account for such imbalances is estimating a covariate-adjusted restricted mean difference by modeling the covariate-adjusted survival distribution and then marginalizing over the covariate distribution. Because the estimator for the restricted mean difference is defined by the estimator for the covariate-adjusted survival distribution, it is natural to expect that a better estimator of the covariate-adjusted survival distribution is associated with a better estimator of the restricted mean difference. We therefore propose estimating restricted mean differences with stacked survival models. Stacked survival models estimate a weighted average of several survival models by minimizing predicted error. By including a range of parametric, semi-parametric, and non-parametric models, stacked survival models can robustly estimate a covariate-adjusted survival distribution and, therefore, the restricted mean treatment effect in a wide range of scenarios. We demonstrate through a simulation study that better performance of the covariate-adjusted survival distribution often leads to better mean squared error of the restricted mean difference although there are notable exceptions. In addition, we demonstrate that the proposed estimator can perform nearly as well as Cox regression when the proportional hazards assumption is satisfied and significantly better when proportional hazards is violated. Finally, the proposed estimator is illustrated with data from the United Network for Organ Sharing to evaluate post-lung transplant survival between large-volume and small-volume centers. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.