Literature DB >> 8134738

Comparison of the Cox model and the regression tree procedure in analysing a randomized clinical trial.

C Schmoor1, K Ulm, M Schumacher.   

Abstract

In a clinical trial comparing different treatments the patients may be rather heterogeneous with regard to their natural prognosis. Simple overall comparison of the treatment groups may lead to a biased estimate of the treatment effect even in a well-balanced randomized study, at least when survival time is the outcome. An adequate analysis of the treatment effect is only feasible in a multivariate framework where the important prognostic factors are accounted for and, additionally, treatment-covariate interactions may be evaluated. Analyses using the Cox model are compared with alternative approaches based on the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) technique. Basic differences between these approaches are outlined and discussed in the context of a randomized clinical trial of chemotherapy in patients with brain tumours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8134738     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780122411

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


  9 in total

1.  Artificial intelligence for clinicians.

Authors:  P J Drew; J R Monson
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Definition of disease-risk stratification groups in childhood medulloblastoma using combined clinical, pathologic, and molecular variables.

Authors:  David W Ellison; Mehmet Kocak; James Dalton; Hisham Megahed; Meryl E Lusher; Sarra L Ryan; Wei Zhao; Sarah Leigh Nicholson; Roger E Taylor; Simon Bailey; Steven C Clifford
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Prognostic factors: rationale and methods of analysis and integration.

Authors:  G M Clark; S G Hilsenbeck; P M Ravdin; M De Laurentiis; C K Osborne
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Tree-based identification of subgroups for time-varying covariate survival data.

Authors:  Marnie Bertolet; Maria M Brooks; Vera Bittner
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2012-10-14       Impact factor: 3.021

5.  Prognostic factors for survival of patients with glioblastoma: recursive partitioning analysis.

Authors:  Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 12.300

6.  Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with DNA replication errors.

Authors:  J R Jass; K A Do; L A Simms; H Iino; C Wynter; S P Pillay; J Searle; G Radford-Smith; J Young; B Leggett
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 7.  Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology.

Authors:  R Simon; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Oblique decision trees for spatial pattern detection: optimal algorithm and application to malaria risk.

Authors:  Jean Gaudart; Belco Poudiougou; Stéphane Ranque; Ogobara Doumbo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2005-07-18       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 9.  Survival analysis part IV: further concepts and methods in survival analysis.

Authors:  T G Clark; M J Bradburn; S B Love; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-09-01       Impact factor: 7.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.