ArticleTrials2026
Estimation of combined treatment effects by restricted mean survival time.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRestricted mean survival time (RMST) endpoints are becoming commonly used as trialists look to analyse time-to-event outcomes without the restrictions of the proportional hazards assumption. An additional benefit of RMST endpoints which has so far remained unexplored is their capability to combine treatment main effects and treatment-by-covariate interaction terms into single one-dimensional estimators under both proportional and non-proportional hazards. By utilising RMST estimators, trialists may assess treatment effects associated with multiple covariates, including interaction terms - an inherent limitation of proportional hazards models when this assumption is violated.
methodsWe present a simulation study using a case study of a randomised controlled trial of Gamma interferon for the treatment of chronic granulomatous disease. We evaluate the power and type I error rate of parametric and non-parametric RMST estimators of combined treatment effects under both proportional and non-proportional hazards. Performance is evaluated when the model or the knot point is specified correctly or misspecified. We also explore the effect of truncation time.
resultsSimulations show that parametric RMST estimators offer greater power when covariate effects and knot-point locations are correctly specified or only mildly misspecified. However, their performance deteriorates as omitted covariate effects increase or knot locations become more misspecified. Under substantial misspecification, the non-parametric estimator is more robust, maintaining stable type I error rates and improved power. For the non-parametric approach, power increases with later truncation times.
conclusionsThis paper demonstrates the role of RMST estimators for survival analysis in the presence of main treatment effects and treatment-by-covariate interactions - highlighting the utility of RMST estimators in the analysis of trials with combined treatment effects. This paper offers further practical guidance on the strengths and limitations of parametric and non-parametric RMST estimators in the presence of model misspecification. It also serves as a case study for trialists wishing to explore RMST estimators by simulations tailored to their own research context.
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.