ArticleBiometrics2023
On restricted mean time in favor of treatment.
Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Doubly Robust Estimators of the Restricted Mean Time in Favor Estimands in Individual- and Cluster-Randomized Trials.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- An Overview and Recent Developments in the Analysis of Multistate Processes.Statistics in medicine · 2026Review
- Specification of Estimands for Complex Disease Processes Using Multistate Models and Utility Functions.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Hierarchical Analysis of Composite Time-to-Event End Points in Heart Failure Clinical Trials Using Time in Clinical State.Circulation. Heart failure · 2025Review
- Defining estimand for the win ratio: Separate the true effect from censoring.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2024Article
- Dissecting the restricted mean time in favor of treatment.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Power and Sample Size Calculations for the Restricted Mean Time Analysis of Prioritized Composite Endpoints.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2023Article
- Quantifying Treatment Effects in Trials with Multiple Event-Time Outcomes.NEJM evidence · 2022Article
- On recurrent-event win ratio.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The restricted mean time in favor (RMT-IF) of treatment is a nonparametric effect size for complex life history data. It is defined as the net average time the treated spend in a more favorable state than the untreated over a prespecified time window. It generalizes the familiar restricted mean survival time (RMST) from the two-state life-death model to account for intermediate stages in disease progression. The overall estimand can be additively decomposed into stage-wise effects, with the standard RMST as a component. Alternate expressions of the overall and stage-wise estimands as integrals of the marginal survival functions for a sequence of landmark transitioning events allow them to be easily estimated by plug-in Kaplan-Meier estimators. The dynamic profile of the estimated treatment effects as a function of follow-up time can be visualized using a multilayer, cone-shaped "bouquet plot." Simulation studies under realistic settings show that the RMT-IF meaningfully and accurately quantifies the treatment effect and outperforms traditional tests on time to the first event in statistical efficiency thanks to its fuller utilization of patient data. The new methods are illustrated on a colon cancer trial with relapse and death as outcomes and a cardiovascular trial with recurrent hospitalizations and death as outcomes. The R-package rmt implements the proposed methodology and is publicly available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).
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.