ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Summary measures in non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome: an empirical comparison of power.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTime-to-event data is commonly used in non-inferiority clinical trials. While the hazard ratio is a popular summary measure in this context, the difference in restricted mean survival time has been theoretically shown to increase power and interpretability. This study aimed to empirically compare the power of the hazard ratio, difference in survival and difference in restricted mean survival time for non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome recently published in key clinical journals.
methodsSixty-five non-inferiority trials with a time-to-event outcome were included from two literature searches. Individual patient data were reconstructed and reanalysed. The hazard ratio, difference in survival and difference in restricted mean survival time were estimated under proportional hazards, using a Cox model for the hazard ratio and a flexible parametric survival model for the latter two summary measures. The latter measures were additionally estimated non-parametrically. Margin conversion was done using observed data in the control arm. Empirical power was defined as the proportion of trials that rejected the null hypothesis.
resultsDifference in restricted mean survival time gave a potential power advantage over the hazard ratio with an empirical power increase of
conclusionOur results empirically corroborate the theoretical advantage of difference in restricted mean survival time over the hazard ratio and difference in survival in non-inferiority clinical trials. This advantage is most apparent when estimation is done under proportional hazards. Choosing a relevant time point at which to evaluate the survival-based summary measures is an important aspect that should be carefully considered. We recommend incorporation of the difference in restricted mean survival time in the design and analysis of non-inferiority clinical trials when clinically justifiable. If appropriate, estimation under proportional hazards is preferable.
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.