Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41963261›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2026

Longitudinal Extension of the Win Odds for Ordinal Repeated Measurements.

Yongxi Long, Bart C Jacobs, Ewout W Steyerberg, Erik W van Zwet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 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

4 authors.

Yongxi LongBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8871-152X
Bart C JacobsDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Erik W van ZwetBiomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-3179

Funding

Annexon Biosciences
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Initially proposed for analyzing composite endpoints, the win odds have recently received increasing interest for the analysis of ordinal outcomes. When comparing an ordinal outcome between two groups, the win odds are the odds that a randomly selected subject from the first group has a better outcome than a randomly selected subject from the second group. As such, the win odds are an effect size that is closely related to the Mann-Whitney U test. The win odds can be adjusted for covariates by the probabilistic index model. Here, we aim to extend this model for repeated measurements. We modify the estimation equations of the probabilistic index model to account for within-subject correlation. Parameter estimation can be conveniently done via some data re-structuring and the R package geepack. We implement a sandwich-type estimator to estimate the variance-covariance matrix. Simulations show that the estimation of the win odds is consistent and the coverage of confidence intervals is close to nominal. We provide an application by reanalyzing a neurological trial for the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome (SID-GBS trial). This extension establishes the win odds as a promising summary measure to compare longitudinal ordinal outcomes. R package lwo is available on GitHub for implementing the proposed method.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalGuillain-Barre SyndromeHumansLongitudinal StudiesOdds Ratioclinical trialsordinal longitudinal outcomesprobabilistic index modelwin odds

Identifiers

PMID41963261
PMCPMC13068635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.