ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
Further Practical Guidance on Adjusting Time-To-Event Outcomes for Treatment Switching.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment switching in oncology evidence synthesis: a systematic review of meta-analytical practices incorporating time-dependent confounding, censoring bias, and patient-level variability.Dialogues in health · 2026Article
- A note on rank-preserving structural failure time models to account for crossover.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- ESMO-MCBS v2.0: Advances, challenges, and perspectives in the assessment of clinical benefit in oncology.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
- Further Practical Guidance on Adjusting Time-To-Event Outcomes for Treatment Switching.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this article is to bring together the key current information on practical considerations when conducting statistical analyses adjusting long-term outcomes for treatment switching, combining it with learnings from our own experience, thus providing a useful reference tool for analysts. When patients switch from their randomised treatment to another therapy that affects a subsequently observed outcome such as overall survival, there may be interest in estimating the treatment effect under a hypothetical scenario without the intercurrent event of switching. We describe the theory and provide guidance on how and when to conduct analyses using three commonly used complex approaches: rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM), two-stage estimation (TSE), and inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW). Extensions and alternatives to the standard approaches are summarised. Important and sometimes misunderstood concepts such as recensoring and sources of variability are explained. An overview of available software and programming guidance is provided, along with an R code repository for a worked example, reporting recommendations, and a review of the current acceptability of these methods to regulatory and health technology assessment agencies. Since the current guidance on this topic is scattered across multiple sources, it is difficult for an analyst to obtain a good overview of all options and potential pitfalls. This paper is intended to save statisticians time and effort by summarizing important information in a single source. By also including recommendations for best practice, it aims to improve the quality of the analyses and reporting when adjusting time-to-event outcomes for treatment switching.
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.