4.5 Article

A versatile test for equality of two survival functions based on weighted differences of Kaplan-Meier curves

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 28, 页码 3680-3695

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6591

关键词

logrank test; perturbation resampling method; proportional hazards; robust tests

资金

  1. NIH [R01-HL089778, R01-GM079330, R01-AI024643, UM1AI068616, UM1AI068634]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With censored event time observations, the logrank test is the most popular tool for testing the equality of two underlying survival distributions. Although this test is asymptotically distribution free, it may not be powerful when the proportional hazards assumption is violated. Various other novel testing procedures have been proposed, which generally are derived by assuming a class of specific alternative hypotheses with respect to the hazard functions. The test considered by Pepe and Fleming (1989) is based on a linear combination of weighted differences of the two Kaplan-Meier curves over time and is a natural tool to assess the difference of two survival functions directly. In this article, we take a similar approach but choose weights that are proportional to the observed standardized difference of the estimated survival curves at each time point. The new proposal automatically makes weighting adjustments empirically. The new test statistic is aimed at a one-sided general alternative hypothesis and is distributed with a short right tail under the null hypothesis but with a heavy tail under the alternative. The results from extensive numerical studies demonstrate that the new procedure performs well under various general alternatives with a caution of a minor inflation of the type I error rate when the sample size is small or the number of observed events is small. The survival data from a recent cancer comparative study are utilized for illustrating the implementation of the process. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据