Reply to H. Uno et al and B. Huang et al.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The Inverse Log-Rank Test: A Versatile Procedure for Late Separating Survival Curves.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
   Article
2. Are restricted mean survival time methods especially useful for noninferiority trials?Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Methods for Accommodating Nonproportional Hazards in Clinical Trials: Ready for the Primary Analysis?2019
• Comment on
  Estimating Treatment Effect as the Primary Analysis in a Comparative Study: Moving Beyond2020
• Comment on
  Is the Log-Rank and Hazard Ratio Test/Estimation the Best Approach for Primary Analysis for All Trials?2020

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.