Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29492746›Full record

ArticleLifetime data analysis2019

Improved precision in the analysis of randomized trials with survival outcomes, without assuming proportional hazards.

Iván Díaz, Elizabeth Colantuoni, Daniel F Hanley, Michael Rosenblum

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Produce Prescription Dose Response: A Randomized Community Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Iván DíazDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. ild2005@med.cornell.edu.
Elizabeth ColantuoniDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Daniel F HanleyDivision of Brain Injury Outcomes, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael RosenblumDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Clot Lysis: Evaluating Accelerated Resolution of IVH Phase III (CLEAR III)U01NS062851 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HANLEY, DANIEL F · 2009 to 2013
$21.6M
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (US) U01NS062851U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US) HHSF223201400113C
6 · The paper itself

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

Proportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisAlgorithmsData AnalysisHumansStrokeCovariate adjustmentEfficiencyRandom censoringTargeted minimum loss based estimation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.