ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2026
The Challenge of Time-to-Event Analysis for Multiple Events: A Guided Tour From Time-to-First-Event to Recurrent Time-to-Event Analysis.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods for analyzing recurrent and terminal events considering composite and competing endpoints in clinical trials: a practical overview.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Review
- The Challenge of Time-to-Event Analysis for Multiple Events: A Guided Tour From Time-to-First-Event to Recurrent Time-to-Event Analysis.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials often compare a treatment to a control group concerning multiple possible combined time-to-event endpoints like hospital-free survival. Thereby, the first endpoint may occur more than once ("recurrent"), whereas the second endpoint is absorbing. Inclusion of all observed events in the analysis can increase the power and provide a more complete picture of the disease but it needs more sophisticated methodology. We give a stepwise guidance on how to extend the simple time-to-first event model to complex multistate methodology, where multiple events are incorporated. We thereby consider non- and semiparametric methods and show how they are related. Special attention is given to the prerequisites of the models, for example, the Markov property, and their interpretation. Due to novel results in non-Markov models, the summary measurements: state occupation probability, mean number of hospitalizations, and average length of stay allow an easy interpretation of a treatment effect in non-Markov models if the censoring is random. Partly conditional transition rates can be estimated instead of hazards. We investigate the difference between partly conditional transition rates and hazards and the impact of the random censoring condition in a simulation study. Furthermore, the simulation study considers the sensitivity of a Markov test. Different estimators are introduced, and their use is explained based on data from the randomized controlled Interdisciplinary Network Heart Failure trial, which investigated the effects of a nurse-coordinated disease management program. The aim is to give an overview of existing methods, present the assumptions, and elaborate on the differences in interpretation.
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.