Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34504980›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2021

Estimation of the censoring distribution in clinical trials.

Shu Jiang, David Swanson, Rebecca A Betensky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Shu JiangDivision of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, USA.
David SwansonOslo Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
Rebecca A BetenskyDepartment of Biostatistics, New York University School of Global Public Health, USA.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Research Education ComponentP30AG066512 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Mary Sherman Mittelman · 2020 to 2026
$28.4M
Statistical methods for censored and dependently truncated dataR01NS094610 · NINDS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI BETENSKY, REBECCA A. · 2016 to 2019
$1.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066512NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS094610
6 · The paper itself

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

Administrative censoringClinical trials

Identifiers

PMID34504980
PMCPMC8416639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.