↓ Skip to main content

Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Augmenting the logrank test in the design of clinical trials in which non-proportional hazards of the treatment effect may be anticipated
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0110-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Royston, Mahesh K.B. Parmar

Abstract

Most randomized controlled trials with a time-to-event outcome are designed assuming proportional hazards (PH) of the treatment effect. The sample size calculation is based on a logrank test. However, non-proportional hazards are increasingly common. At analysis, the estimated hazards ratio with a confidence interval is usually presented. The estimate is often obtained from a Cox PH model with treatment as a covariate. If non-proportional hazards are present, the logrank and equivalent Cox tests may lose power. To safeguard power, we previously suggested a 'joint test' combining the Cox test with a test of non-proportional hazards. Unfortunately, a larger sample size is needed to preserve power under PH. Here, we describe a novel test that unites the Cox test with a permutation test based on restricted mean survival time. We propose a combined hypothesis test based on a permutation test of the difference in restricted mean survival time across time. The test involves the minimum of the Cox and permutation test P-values. We approximate its null distribution and correct it for correlation between the two P-values. Using extensive simulations, we assess the type 1 error and power of the combined test under several scenarios and compare with other tests. We investigate powering a trial using the combined test. The type 1 error of the combined test is close to nominal. Power under proportional hazards is slightly lower than for the Cox test. Enhanced power is available when the treatment difference shows an 'early effect', an initial separation of survival curves which diminishes over time. The power is reduced under a 'late effect', when little or no difference in survival curves is seen for an initial period and then a late separation occurs. We propose a method of powering a trial using the combined test. The 'insurance premium' offered by the combined test to safeguard power under non-PH represents about a single-digit percentage increase in sample size. The combined test increases trial power under an early treatment effect and protects power under other scenarios. Use of restricted mean survival time facilitates testing and displaying a generalized treatment effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 28%
Mathematics 11 26%
Engineering 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2022.
All research outputs
#6,493,108
of 23,437,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#969
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,527
of 403,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,437,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.