Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41925917›Full record

ArticleLifetime data analysis2026

Comparing adaptive treatment strategies in two-stage randomized trials with grouped survival data.

Monique Sparkman, Susan Halabi, Zhiguo Li

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Lifetime data analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Monique SparkmanDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Susan HalabiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Zhiguo LiDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. zhiguo.li@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9975-6005

Funding

Clinical genomic predictive model of first line androgen receptor inhibitor therapy outcomes in men with mCRPCR01CA256157 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ARMSTRONG, ANDREW J, DEHM, SCOTT M. · 2020 to 2025
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA256157
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two-stage randomized trials, or the more general sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMART), have been increasingly used in studying adaptive treatment strategies for treating chronic diseases or conditions where treatments need to be adjusted during the treatment course. Methods for analyzing two-stage randomized trials with continuous, longitudinal or right-censored survival endpoints have been developed. However, no method exists for data analysis for two-stage randomized trials with grouped survival endpoints, which are frequently encountered in practice. In this article, we propose methods for analyzing grouped survival data from two-stage randomized trials. We first extend the methods in Prentice and Gloeckler (1978) to allow for patient missing pre-specified visits, and use an efficient score test to make inferences on treatment effects with grouped data in traditional randomized trials. Based on this, we propose a weighted efficient score test to compare two adaptive treatment strategies with grouped survival data in two-stage randomized trials with missing visits. Asymptotic properties are formulated, and simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the performances of the proposed methods. We also apply the weighted score test in analyzing data from the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) trial.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicComputer SimulationHumansSurvival AnalysisAdaptive treatment strategyGrouped survival dataTwo-stage randomized trialWeighted score test

Identifiers

PMID41925917
PMCPMC13123648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.