ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
When patients' voices aren't heard: estimands and statistical methods for handling missing patient-reported outcomes in oncology studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are integral to oncology clinical trials, yet missing data - especially due to intercurrent events (ICEs) of disease progression pose challenges for robust and interpretable analysis. While regulatory and best practice guidelines now emphasize the explicit definition of estimands, including strategies for handling ICEs, and supplementary analyses to examine their robustness, practical recommendations for their implementation in PRO analyses remain limited.
methodsWe present a methodological framework for defining estimands and statistical analysis for a longitudinal change in a PRO confirmatory endpoint, including strategies for handling the main ICE of disease progression using a simulated clinical trial. We propose for the ICE of disease progression using either a hypothetical or treatment policy strategy for the main and supplementary analysis, and present implementation of two methods targeting a hypothetical approach and one method for treatment policy approach (implicit multiple imputation in a longitudinal model, a joint modelling of longitudinal PROs and time-to-progression, and multiple imputation using control-based imputation post progression).
resultsWe present the occurrence of ICEs and missing data and provide a tutorial for conducting analysis in the presence of disease progression using hypothetical and treatment policy strategies respectively. Despite the occurrence of disease progression events and other missing data, conducting supplementary analysis provided confidence in our overall interpretation for the simulated trial.
conclusionsOur recommendations provide practical guidance for specifying estimands, selecting statistical analysis methods, and interpreting PRO analyses in oncology trials with missing data. Accurately estimating the treatment effect on quality-of-life, in a way which is interpretable, is crucial to aid patients and other stakeholders when making treatment decisions.
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.