Literature DB >> 17955563

Sample size calculations in the presence of competing risks.

A Latouche1, R Porcher.   

Abstract

Recently, with the growth of statistical developments for competing risks analysis, some methods have been proposed to compute sample size in this context. These methods differ from a modelling approach: one is based on the Cox regression model for the cause-specific hazard, while another relies on the Fine and Gray regression model for the subdistribution hazard of a competing risk. In this work, we compare these approaches, derive a new sample size for comparing cumulative incidence functions when the hazards are not proportional (either cause-specific or subdistribution) and give practical advices to choose the approach best suited for the study question. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17955563     DOI: 10.1002/sim.3114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  13 in total

1.  Multistate Models on Pleural Effusion after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

Authors:  Joohyoung Lee; Dipenkumar Modi; Hyejeong Jang; Joseph P Uberti; Seongho Kim
Journal:  Open Access Med Stat       Date:  2017-04-15

2.  Design and testing for clinical trials faced with misclassified causes of death.

Authors:  Bart Van Rompaye; Els Goetghebeur; Shabbar Jaffar
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2010-03-08       Impact factor: 5.899

Review 3.  Statistical Considerations for Analyses of Time-To-Event Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials: Illustrations with CAR-T Immunotherapy Studies.

Authors:  Yimei Li; Wei-Ting Hwang; Shannon L Maude; David T Teachey; Noelle V Frey; Regina M Myers; Allison Barz Leahy; Hongyan Liu; David L Porter; Stephan A Grupp; Pamela A Shaw
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 13.801

4.  Competing event risk stratification may improve the design and efficiency of clinical trials: secondary analysis of SWOG 8794.

Authors:  Kaveh Zakeri; Brent S Rose; Sachin Gulaya; Anthony V D'Amico; Loren K Mell
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-10-11       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Choice and interpretation of statistical tests used when competing risks are present.

Authors:  James J Dignam; Maria N Kocherginsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  The use of group sequential designs with common competing risks tests.

Authors:  Brent R Logan; Mei-Jie Zhang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-09-04       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Initially fewer bloodstream infections for allogeneic vs. autologous stem-cell transplants in neutropenic patients.

Authors:  S Hieke; H Bertz; M Dettenkofer; M Schumacher; J Beyersmann
Journal:  Epidemiol Infect       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 4.434

8.  Analysis and design of randomised clinical trials involving competing risks endpoints.

Authors:  Bee-Choo Tai; Joseph Wee; David Machin
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Understanding competing risks: a simulation point of view.

Authors:  Arthur Allignol; Martin Schumacher; Christoph Wanner; Christiane Drechsler; Jan Beyersmann
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  Novel Composite Endpoints after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

Authors:  Haesook T Kim; Brent Logan; Daniel J Weisdorf
Journal:  Transplant Cell Ther       Date:  2021-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.