ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2026
Using inverse probability of censoring weighting to estimate hypothetical estimands in clinical trials: Should we implement stabilisation, and if so how?
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inverse probability of censoring weighting is an approach used to estimate the hypothetical treatment effect that would have been observed in a clinical trial if certain intercurrent events had not occurred. Despite the unbiased estimates obtained by inverse probability of censoring weighting when its key assumptions are satisfied, large standard errors and wide confidence intervals can be potential concerns. Inverse probability of censoring weighting with unstabilised weights can be simply implemented by calculating the reciprocal of the probability of being uncensored by the intercurrent events. To improve precision, stabilisation can be realised by replacing the numerator in the unstabilised weights with functions of the time and baseline covariates. Here, we aim to investigate whether stabilised weight is a preferred choice and if so how we should specify the numerator. In a simulation study, we assessed the performance of inverse probability of censoring weighting implementations with unstabilised weights and with different forms of stabilisation when the outcome analysis model was correctly specified or mis-specified. Scenarios were designed to vary the prevalence of the intercurrent event in one or both randomised arms, the existence of a deterministic intercurrent event, the indirect effect through baseline covariates and overall treatment effect, the existence and the pattern of time-varying effect and sample size. Results show that compared with unstabilised weights, stabilisation improves the efficiency of the inverse probability of censoring weighting estimator in most cases and the improvement is obvious when we stabilise for the baseline covariates. However, stabilisation risks increasing the bias when the outcome analysis model is mis-specified.
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.