ArticleBiometrics2026
Regression methods for cost-effectiveness analysis with different censoring times or terminating events for survival time and costs.
Article in Biometrics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is crucial for evaluating new medical treatments. In many studies, both costs and effectiveness are censored. While standard survival analysis methods suit survival time, they cannot be directly applied to cumulative outcomes (e.g., costs or quality-adjusted lifetime) due to induced informative censoring. Additional challenges arise when costs and effectiveness have different terminating events or censoring times. Our motivating examples are two cardiovascular trials: MADIT-CRT and MADIT-II. In MADIT-CRT, effectiveness was defined as heart failure-free survival, while costs accumulated until death, leading to different terminating events for costs and effectiveness. Furthermore, subgroup identification for patient heterogeneity was also of interest. In MADIT-II, early stopping of cost collection for some patients complicated CEA. These examples highlight the need for methods handling different censoring structures while allowing covariate adjustment to improve efficiency and address imperfect randomization. Although some CEA methods have been proposed for different terminating events or censoring times, none provide covariate adjustment. We propose regression-based methods for CEA with different terminating events or censoring times, focusing on estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the incremental net benefit. By incorporating covariates within a regression framework, our methods enable covariate adjustment and subgroup identification. Simulation studies demonstrate good finite-sample performance, and applications to the two motivating examples show that our approach provides practical tools for CEA under complex censoring mechanisms.
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.