Royston, P;
Choodari-Oskooei, B;
Parmar, MKB;
Rogers, JK;
(2019)
Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials.
Trials
, 20
(1)
, Article 172. 10.1186/s13063-019-3251-5.
Preview |
Text
Royston2019_Article_CombinedTestVersusLogrankCoxTe.pdf - Published Version Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The logrank test and the Cox proportional hazards model are routinely applied in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with time-to-event outcomes. Usually, sample size and power calculations assume proportional hazards (PH) of the treatment effect, i.e. the hazard ratio is constant over the entire follow-up period. If the PH assumption fails, the power of the logrank/Cox test may be reduced, sometimes severely. It is, therefore, important to understand how serious this can become in real trials, and for a proven, alternative test to be available to increase the robustness of the primary test. METHODS: We performed a systematic search to identify relevant articles in four leading medical journals that publish results of phase 3 clinical trials. Altogether, 50 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. We digitised published Kaplan-Meier curves and created approximations to the original times to event or censoring at the individual patient level. Using the reconstructed data, we tested for non-PH in all 50 trials. We compared the results from the logrank/Cox test with those from the combined test recently proposed by Royston and Parmar. RESULTS: The PH assumption was checked and reported only in 28% of the studies. Evidence of non-PH at the 0.10 level was detected in 31% of comparisons. The Cox test of the treatment effect was significant at the 0.05 level in 49% of comparisons, and the combined test in 55%. In four of five trials with discordant results, the interpretation would have changed had the combined test been used. The degree of non-PH and the dominance of the p value for the combined test were strongly associated. Graphical investigation suggested that non-PH was mostly due to a treatment effect manifesting in an early follow-up and disappearing later. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for non-PH is checked (and, hence, identified) in only a small minority of RCTs, but non-PH may be present in a substantial fraction of such trials. In our reanalysis of the reconstructed data from 50 trials, the combined test outperformed the Cox test overall. The combined test is a promising approach to making trial design and analysis more robust.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials |
| Location: | England |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s13063-019-3251-5 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3251-5 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | Copyright © The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
| Keywords: | Combined test, Cox test, Hazard ratio, Logrank test, Non-proportional hazards, Randomised controlled trials, Robustness, Time-to-event outcome |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology > MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10070674 |
Loading...
Loading...Loading...Loading...Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
