Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35043427›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2022

Analysis of composite endpoints with component-wise censoring in the presence of differential visit schedules.

Anne A Eaton, Emily C Zabor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Anne A EatonDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5900-9745
Emily C ZaborDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences & Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1402-4498

Funding

Women's CancerP30CA077598 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI HEATHER Hammond NELSON · 1998 to 2026
$100.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA077598NCI NIH HHS P30 CA77598
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Composite endpoints are very common in clinical research, such as recurrence-free survival in oncology research, defined as the earliest of either death or disease recurrence. Because of the way data are collected in such studies, component-wise censoring is common, where, for example, recurrence is an interval-censored event and death is a right-censored event. However, a common way to analyze such component-wise censored composite endpoints is to treat them as right-censored, with the date at which the non-fatal event was detected serving as the date the event occurred. This approach is known to introduce upward bias when the Kaplan-Meier estimator is applied, but has more complex impact on semi-parametric regression approaches. In this article we compare the performance of the Cox model estimators for right-censored data and the Cox model estimators for interval-censored data in the context of component-wise censored data where the visit process differs across levels of a covariate of interest, a common scenario in observational data. We additionally examine estimators of the cause-specific hazard when applied to the individual components of such component-wise censored composite endpoints. We found that when visit schedules differed according to levels of a covariate of interest, the Cox model estimators for right-censored data and the estimators for cause-specific hazards were increasingly biased as the frequency of visits decreased. The Cox model estimator for interval-censored data with censoring at the last disease-free date is recommended for use in the presence of differential visit schedules.

Indexed as

Proportional Hazards ModelsBiasComputer SimulationHumansSurvival Analysiscomponent-wise censoringcomposite endpointCox proportional hazards regressioninterval censoringobservational studyright censoringsurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID35043427
PMCPMC12719976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.