ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2024
Defining estimand for the win ratio: Separate the true effect from censoring.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- On Hierarchical Composite Endpoints in Pediatric Cancer Supportive Care: Illustrative Examples From Two Multi-Center Phase-III Randomized Clinical Trials.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2026Trial
- The efficacy of finerenone on hierarchical composite endpoint analysed using win statistics in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: A prespecified analysis of FINEARTS-HF.European journal of heart failure · 2025Trial
- Comparing Missing Data Strategies for Generalized Pairwise Comparisons in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Simulation Study.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Confidence interval estimation for the win probability in cluster randomized trials with hierarchical composite endpoints using win fractions.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Pharmacist Outreach and SGLT2 Inhibitor Uptake in Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Predicting Win-Loss Probabilities for Composite Time-to-Event Outcomes Under The Proportional Win-Fractions Regression Model.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Statistical analysis of Likert-based ordinal scales: a guide for clinical trialists.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Specification of Estimands for Complex Disease Processes Using Multistate Models and Utility Functions.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
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 win ratio has been increasingly used in trials with hierarchical composite endpoints. While the outcomes involved and the rule for their comparisons vary with the application, there is invariably little attention to the estimand of the resulting statistic, causing difficulties in interpretation and cross-trial comparison. We make the case for articulating the estimand as a first step to win ratio analysis and establish that the root cause for its elusiveness is its intrinsic dependency on the time frame of comparison, which, if left unspecified, is set haphazardly by trial-specific censoring. From the statistical literature, we summarize two general approaches to overcome this uncertainty-a nonparametric one that pre-specifies the time frame for all comparisons, and a semiparametric one that posits a constant win ratio across all times-each with publicly available software and real examples. Finally, we discuss unsolved challenges, such as estimand construction and inference in the presence of intercurrent events.
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.