ArticleCancer medicine2020
Which patients to sample in clinical cohort studies when the number of events is high and measurement of additional markers is constrained by limited resources.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New weighting methods when cases are only a subset of events in a nested case-control study.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2022Article
- Which patients to sample in clinical cohort studies when the number of events is high and measurement of additional markers is constrained by limited resources.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe consider an existing clinical cohort with events but limited resources for the investigation of a further potentially expensive marker. Biological material of the patients is stored in a biobank, but only a limited number of samples can be analyzed with respect to the marker. The question arises as to which patients to sample, if the number of events preclude standard sampling designs.
methodsModifications of the nested case-control and the case-cohort design for the proportional hazards model are applied, that allow efficient sampling in situations where standard nested case-control and case-cohort are not feasible. These sampling designs are compared to simple random sampling and extreme group sampling, the latter including only patients with extreme outcomes, ie either with an event early in time or without an event until at least a point later in time.
resultsThe modified nested case-control design and the modified case-cohort design provide powerful methods for sampling in a clinical cohort with many events. The simple random sampling usually is less efficient. If focus is on precise estimation of a potential effect in terms of a hazard ratio, extreme group sampling is not competitive. If focus is on screening for important biomarkers, extreme group sampling markedly outperforms the other sampling designs.
conclusionsWhen it is not feasible to sample all events, a modified nested case-control design or case-cohort design leads to efficient effect estimates in the proportional hazards model. If screening for important biomarkers is the primary objective, extreme group sampling is preferable.
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.