ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2021
Estimation of the censoring distribution in clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical studies with time to event endpoints typically report the median follow-up (i.e., censoring) time for the subjects in the trial, alongside the median time to event. The reason for this is to provide information about the opportunity for subjects in the study to experience the event of interest (Betensky, 2015 [1]). The median follow-up time is often calculated from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for time to censoring. In most clinical studies, the censoring time is a composite measure, defined as the minimum of time to drop-out from the study and time to administrative end of study. The time to drop-out component may or may not be observed; it is observed only if drop-out occurs before the event and the end of the study. However, the time to end of study is observed for each subject, as it is the time from entry to the study to the calendar date that is administratively set as the end of the study. It is known even for subjects who have the event prior to the end of the study. This decomposition of the censoring time into a time that is itself potentially censored and a time that is fully observed raises the interesting question of whether estimation of the censoring distribution could be improved through a decoupling of these times. We demonstrate in simulations that consideration of censoring in this way yields reduced variability under some circumstances and should be used in practice. We illustrate these concepts through application to a meningioma study.
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.