ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
The role of the estimand framework in the analysis of patient-reported outcomes in single-arm trials: a case study in oncology.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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.
- Tutorial on Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Development.Clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Defining estimands in anaesthesia clinical trials: a scoping review and framework.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- When patients' voices aren't heard: estimands and statistical methods for handling missing patient-reported outcomes in oncology studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- How to Analyze Longitudinal Patient-Reported Outcomes in Populations With High Mortality Rates.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Social isolation and functional impairment trajectories in a diverse cohort of middle-aged and older adults in Northern California.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Observational
- Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Metastatic NSCLC Treated at an Academic Medical Center, 2017-2021.Cancer medicine · 2025Observational
- Handling missing values in patient-reported outcome data in the presence of intercurrent events.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Longitudinal health-related quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer stratified by treatment: a nationwide cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasing role in the evaluation of oncology treatments. At the same time, single-arm trials are commonly included in regulatory approval submissions. Because of the high risk of biases, results from single-arm trials require careful interpretation. This benefits from a clearly defined estimand, or target of estimation. In this case study, we demonstrated how the ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework can be implemented in SATs with PRO endpoints.
methodsFor the global quality of life outcome in a real single-arm lung cancer trial, a range of possible estimands was defined. We focused on the choice of the variable of interest and strategies to deal with intercurrent events (death, treatment discontinuation and disease progression). Statistical methods were described for each estimand and the corresponding results on the trial data were shown.
resultsEach intercurrent event handling strategy resulted in its own estimated mean global quality of life over time, with a specific interpretation, suitable for a corresponding clinical research aim. In the setting of this case study, a 'while alive' strategy for death and a 'treatment policy' strategy for non-terminal intercurrent events were deemed aligned with a descriptive research aim to inform clinicians and patients about expected quality of life after the start of treatment.
conclusionsThe results show that decisions made in the estimand framework are not trivial. Trial results and their interpretation strongly depend on the chosen estimand. The estimand framework provides a structure to match a research question with a clear target of estimation, supporting specific clinical decisions. Adherence to this framework can help improve the quality of data collection, analysis and reporting of PROs in SATs, impacting decision making in clinical practice.
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.