Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32223524›Full record

Trial reportStatistical methods in medical research2020

Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding.

N R Latimer, I R White, K Tilling, U Siebert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Statistical methods in medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [A comparative study of different methods for treatment switching analysis in clinical trials].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Estimands in clinical trials of complex disease processes.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

N R LatimerSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5304-5585
I R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK.
K TillingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
U SiebertDepartment of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT -- University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2015-08-022Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In oncology trials, control group patients often switch onto the experimental treatment during follow-up, usually after disease progression. In this case, an intention-to-treat analysis will not address the policy question of interest - that of whether the new treatment represents an effective and cost-effective use of health care resources, compared to the standard treatment. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM), inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) and two-stage estimation (TSE) have often been used to adjust for switching to inform treatment reimbursement policy decisions. TSE has been applied using a simple approach (TSEsimp), assuming no time-dependent confounding between the time of disease progression and the time of switch. This is problematic if there is a delay between progression and switch. In this paper we introduce TSEgest, which uses structural nested models and g-estimation to account for time-dependent confounding, and compare it to TSEsimp, RPSFTM and IPCW. We simulated scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment with and without time-dependent confounding being present. We varied switching proportions, treatment effects and censoring proportions. We assessed adjustment methods according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. All methods performed well in scenarios with no time-dependent confounding. TSEgest and RPSFTM continued to perform well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, but TSEsimp resulted in substantial bias. IPCW also performed well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, except when inverse probability weights were high in relation to the size of the group being subjected to weighting, which occurred when there was a combination of modest sample size and high switching proportions. TSEgest represents a useful addition to the collection of methods that may be used to adjust for treatment switching in trials in order to address policy-relevant questions.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTreatment SwitchingHumansProbabilitySample SizeSurvival Analysiscounterfactualg-estimationhealth technology assessmentoncologyoverall survivalpredictionstructural nested modelssurvival analysistime-dependent confoundingtime-to-event outcomestreatment crossoverTreatment switching

Identifiers

PMID32223524
PMCPMC7436445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.