Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2023
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866914656856047616 |
|---|---|
| author | Bardo, Maximilian Huber, Cynthia Benda, Norbert Brugger, Jonas Fellinger, Tobias Galaune, Vaidotas Heinz, Judith Heinzl, Harald Hooker, Andrew C. Klinglmüller, Florian König, Franz Mathes, Tim Mittlböck, Martina Posch, Martin Ristl, Robin Friede, Tim |
| author_facet | Bardo, Maximilian Huber, Cynthia Benda, Norbert Brugger, Jonas Fellinger, Tobias Galaune, Vaidotas Heinz, Judith Heinzl, Harald Hooker, Andrew C. Klinglmüller, Florian König, Franz Mathes, Tim Mittlböck, Martina Posch, Martin Ristl, Robin Friede, Tim |
| contents | For the analysis of time-to-event data, frequently used methods such as the log-rank test or the Cox proportional hazards model are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which is often debatable. Although a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for non-proportional hazards (NPH) has been proposed, there is no consensus on the best approaches. To close this gap, we conducted a systematic literature search to identify statistical methods and software appropriate under NPH. Our literature search identified 907 abstracts, out of which we included 211 articles, mostly methodological ones. Review articles and applications were less frequently identified. The articles discuss effect measures, effect estimation and regression approaches, hypothesis tests, and sample size calculation approaches, which are often tailored to specific NPH situations. Using a unified notation, we provide an overview of methods available. Furthermore, we derive some guidance from the identified articles. We summarized the contents from the literature review in a concise way in the main text and provide more detailed explanations in the supplement. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2306_16858 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2023 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review Bardo, Maximilian Huber, Cynthia Benda, Norbert Brugger, Jonas Fellinger, Tobias Galaune, Vaidotas Heinz, Judith Heinzl, Harald Hooker, Andrew C. Klinglmüller, Florian König, Franz Mathes, Tim Mittlböck, Martina Posch, Martin Ristl, Robin Friede, Tim Methodology Applications 62Nxx, 62Pxx For the analysis of time-to-event data, frequently used methods such as the log-rank test or the Cox proportional hazards model are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which is often debatable. Although a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for non-proportional hazards (NPH) has been proposed, there is no consensus on the best approaches. To close this gap, we conducted a systematic literature search to identify statistical methods and software appropriate under NPH. Our literature search identified 907 abstracts, out of which we included 211 articles, mostly methodological ones. Review articles and applications were less frequently identified. The articles discuss effect measures, effect estimation and regression approaches, hypothesis tests, and sample size calculation approaches, which are often tailored to specific NPH situations. Using a unified notation, we provide an overview of methods available. Furthermore, we derive some guidance from the identified articles. We summarized the contents from the literature review in a concise way in the main text and provide more detailed explanations in the supplement. |
| title | Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review |
| topic | Methodology Applications 62Nxx, 62Pxx |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.16858 |