ArticleLifetime data analysis2019
Improved precision in the analysis of randomized trials with survival outcomes, without assuming proportional hazards.
Article in Lifetime data analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Heterogeneity in design and analysis of ICU delirium randomized trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2021Pooled it
- Produce Prescription Dose Response: A Randomized Community Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials: From general theory to practical insights.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Review
- Machine learning to optimize precision in the analysis of randomized trials: A journey in pre-specified, yet data-adaptive learning.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- The TRaditional versus Early Aggressive Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trial: design and baseline characteristics of participants.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Comparing glaucoma risk in children receiving low-dose and high-dose glucocorticoid treatment after cataract surgery.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- More efficient and inclusive time-to-event trials with covariate adjustment: a simulation study.Trials · 2023Article
- Estimating the Efficiency Gain of Covariate-Adjusted Analyses in Future Clinical Trials Using External Data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2023Article
- Optimising precision and power by machine learning in randomised trials with ordinal and time-to-event outcomes with an application to COVID-19.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2022Article
- Article
- Randomized controlled trial transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2021Article
- Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes.Biometrics · 2021Article
- Article
- Population-level changes in outcomes and Medicare cost following the introduction of new cancer therapies.Health services research · 2021Article
- Improving Precision and Power in Randomized Trials for COVID-19 Treatments Using Covariate Adjustment, for Binary, Ordinal, and Time-to-Event Outcomes.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2020Article
- Correction to: Improved precision in the analysis of randomized trials with survival outcomes, without assuming proportional hazards.Lifetime data analysis · 2020Article
- Adjusted restricted mean survival times in observational studies.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Targeted learning ensembles for optimal individualized treatment rules with time-to-event outcomes.Biometrika · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We present a new estimator of the restricted mean survival time in randomized trials where there is right censoring that may depend on treatment and baseline variables. The proposed estimator leverages prognostic baseline variables to obtain equal or better asymptotic precision compared to traditional estimators. Under regularity conditions and random censoring within strata of treatment and baseline variables, the proposed estimator has the following features: (i) it is interpretable under violations of the proportional hazards assumption; (ii) it is consistent and at least as precise as the Kaplan-Meier and inverse probability weighted estimators, under identifiability conditions; (iii) it remains consistent under violations of independent censoring (unlike the Kaplan-Meier estimator) when either the censoring or survival distributions, conditional on covariates, are estimated consistently; and (iv) it achieves the nonparametric efficiency bound when both of these distributions are consistently estimated. We illustrate the performance of our method using simulations based on resampling data from a completed, phase 3 randomized clinical trial of a new surgical treatment for stroke; the proposed estimator achieves a 12% gain in relative efficiency compared to the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The proposed estimator has potential advantages over existing approaches for randomized trials with time-to-event outcomes, since existing methods either rely on model assumptions that are untenable in many applications, or lack some of the efficiency and consistency properties (i)-(iv). We focus on estimation of the restricted mean survival time, but our methods may be adapted to estimate any treatment effect measure defined as a smooth contrast between the survival curves for each study arm. We provide R code to implement the estimator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29492746What 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.