解决Kaplan Meier生存分析方法在分析全疗效临床试验结果时存在的统计分析困境

Pimnara Peerawaranun, Rob W. van der Pluijm, M. Mukaka
{"title":"解决Kaplan Meier生存分析方法在分析全疗效临床试验结果时存在的统计分析困境","authors":"Pimnara Peerawaranun, Rob W. van der Pluijm, M. Mukaka","doi":"10.1017/exp.2021.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of a Kaplan–Meier (K–M) survival time approach is generally considered appropriate to report antimalarial efficacy trials. However, when a treatment arm has 100% efficacy, confidence intervals may not be computed. Furthermore, methods that use probability rules to handle missing data for instance by multiple imputation, encounter perfect prediction problem when a treatment arm has full efficacy, in which case all imputed values are either treatment success or all imputed values are failures. The use of a survival K–M method addresses this imputation problem in estimating the efficacy estimates also referred to as cure rates. We discuss the statistical challenges and propose a potential way forward. The proposed approach includes the use of K–M estimates as the main measure of efficacy. Confidence intervals could be computed using the binomial exact method. p-Values for comparison of difference in efficacy between treatments can be estimated using Fisher’s exact test. We emphasize that when efficacy rates are not 100% in both groups, the K–M approach remains the main strategy of analysis considering its statistical robustness in handling missing data and confidence intervals can be computed under such scenarios.","PeriodicalId":12269,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Results","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing the statistical analysis dilemma that exists when analyzing clinical trial results with full efficacy using the Kaplan Meier survival analysis method\",\"authors\":\"Pimnara Peerawaranun, Rob W. van der Pluijm, M. Mukaka\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/exp.2021.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of a Kaplan–Meier (K–M) survival time approach is generally considered appropriate to report antimalarial efficacy trials. However, when a treatment arm has 100% efficacy, confidence intervals may not be computed. Furthermore, methods that use probability rules to handle missing data for instance by multiple imputation, encounter perfect prediction problem when a treatment arm has full efficacy, in which case all imputed values are either treatment success or all imputed values are failures. The use of a survival K–M method addresses this imputation problem in estimating the efficacy estimates also referred to as cure rates. We discuss the statistical challenges and propose a potential way forward. The proposed approach includes the use of K–M estimates as the main measure of efficacy. Confidence intervals could be computed using the binomial exact method. p-Values for comparison of difference in efficacy between treatments can be estimated using Fisher’s exact test. We emphasize that when efficacy rates are not 100% in both groups, the K–M approach remains the main strategy of analysis considering its statistical robustness in handling missing data and confidence intervals can be computed under such scenarios.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental Results\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental Results\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2021.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Results","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/exp.2021.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

使用Kaplan-Meier (K-M)生存时间法通常被认为适合报告抗疟疗效试验。然而,当一个治疗组有100%的疗效时,可信区间可能无法计算。此外,使用概率规则处理缺失数据的方法,例如通过多次imputation,在治疗臂完全有效时遇到完美预测问题,在这种情况下,所有的输入值要么是治疗成功,要么是所有的输入值都是失败。生存K-M方法的使用解决了在估计疗效估计(也称为治愈率)时的这种归算问题。我们讨论了统计方面的挑战,并提出了可能的前进方向。建议的方法包括使用K-M估计作为有效性的主要衡量标准。置信区间可以用二项精确法计算。比较不同治疗间疗效差异的p值可以使用Fisher精确检验估计。我们强调,当两组的有效率都不是100%时,考虑到K-M方法处理缺失数据的统计稳健性和在这种情况下可以计算置信区间,K-M方法仍然是主要的分析策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing the statistical analysis dilemma that exists when analyzing clinical trial results with full efficacy using the Kaplan Meier survival analysis method
The use of a Kaplan–Meier (K–M) survival time approach is generally considered appropriate to report antimalarial efficacy trials. However, when a treatment arm has 100% efficacy, confidence intervals may not be computed. Furthermore, methods that use probability rules to handle missing data for instance by multiple imputation, encounter perfect prediction problem when a treatment arm has full efficacy, in which case all imputed values are either treatment success or all imputed values are failures. The use of a survival K–M method addresses this imputation problem in estimating the efficacy estimates also referred to as cure rates. We discuss the statistical challenges and propose a potential way forward. The proposed approach includes the use of K–M estimates as the main measure of efficacy. Confidence intervals could be computed using the binomial exact method. p-Values for comparison of difference in efficacy between treatments can be estimated using Fisher’s exact test. We emphasize that when efficacy rates are not 100% in both groups, the K–M approach remains the main strategy of analysis considering its statistical robustness in handling missing data and confidence intervals can be computed under such scenarios.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信