ReviewPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2024
Hazard Ratios and Alternative Effect Measures: An Applied Illustration.
Review in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The (Mis)interpretation of Hazard Ratios in Clinical Trials.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026Article
- Response to comment on: cardiovascular and prostate cancer risk associated with testosterone replacement therapy-a systematic review and meta-analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Structure-based virtual screening identifies ethyl rosmarinate as a SLC1A6-targeted therapeutic candidate for bladder cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough the limitations of hazard ratios (HRs) for quantifying treatment effects in right-censored data have been widely discussed, HRs are still preferentially reported over other, more interpretable effect measures. This may stem from the fact that there are few applied examples that directly contrast the HR and its interpretation with alternative effect measures.
methodsWe analyzed data from two randomized clinical trials comparing panitumumab plus standard-of-care chemotherapy (SOCC) with SOCC alone as first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We report the effect of treatment with panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) using a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the HR and the Kaplan-Meier estimator of cumulative incidence (risk). Further analyses included examining the cumulative incidence curves; kernel-smoothed, non-parametric hazards curves; fitting the Cox model with a continuous time variable; and estimating restricted mean survival as well as median survival.
resultsThe HR was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71, 0.93), while the risk ratio (or relative risk [i.e., ratio of the cumulative incidence among the treated versus comparator]) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.02). These two measures suggest apparently different conclusions: either a treatment benefit or no effect. Through subsequent analyses, we demonstrated that, while the cumulative incidence of the outcome was similar by the end of follow-up regardless of treatment, the panitumumab treated group experienced longer PFS than those randomized to SOCC. Substantial nonproportional hazards were evident with panitumumab treatment reducing the hazard of progression/mortality during the first ~1.75 years but associated with an increased hazard of progress/mortality thereafter. DISCUSSION: This example underscores the difficulties in interpreting HRs, particularly in the setting of qualitative violations of proportional hazards, and the value of quantifying treatment effects via multiple effect measures.
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.