ArticleTrials2026
Win statistics applied to registry-based randomized clinical trials.
Article in Trials, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWin statistics offer an alternative approach to clinical trials that use survival analysis to analyze composite endpoints. Our objective was to re-analyze data from previously published registry-based randomized controlled trials that produced hazard ratios using win statistics to evaluate the correspondence between them. Good correspondence was defined as both results being positive, negative, or neutral. Win statistics were calculated for these trials to encourage transparency, scientific rigor, and possibly validate results.
methodsThe win ratio ordered events hierarchically by clinical importance for each trial, with all-cause death regarded as most severe, followed by acute myocardial infarction. Further components, i.e., other endpoints, were added subsequently to the hierarchy. Each patient in the treatment group was compared with each patient in the control arm in hierarchical order. The total number of wins for each category in the treatment group was added and divided by the total number of wins in the control group. Win odds were calculated as an extension, which incorporate ties into the calculation.
resultsThe results using win statistics showed good correspondence to the previously reported hazard ratios with their composite endpoints: for the TASTE trial, the results were neutral for both the hazard ratio and win odds. The hazard ratio was 0.86 (0.67-1.10), and the win odds were 1.02 (0.99-1.04). Similar results were found for the iFR-SWEDEHEART, DETO2X-AMI, and VALIDATE trials. The IAMI trial showed better results for the vaccinated group compared to the placebo for both the hazard ratio and win odds.
conclusionsWin statistics offer an alternative approach to traditional survival analysis by harnessing multiple events hierarchically by clinical importance. Win statistics also offer the potential to evaluate a broader range of clinical endpoints, providing a more rounded perspective of treatment efficacy, an important consideration when designing future randomized controlled trials. This is the first multi-registry-based controlled trial reanalysis using win statistics.
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.