4.5 Article

Robust covariate-adjusted log-rank statistics and corresponding sample size formula for recurrent events data

期刊

BIOMETRICS
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 741-750

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00948.x

关键词

local alternative; log-rank statistic; power; proportional means; recurrent events data; sample size

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA075142, CA075142, R29 CA075142, R01 CA075142-11, R01 CA075142-10, R01 CA075142-09A1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL057444, HL57444, R29 HL057444, R01 HL057444-11] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA075142, R29CA075142] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL057444, R29HL057444] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurrent events data are frequently encountered in clinical trials. This article develops robust covariate-adjusted log-rank statistics applied to recurrent events data with arbitrary numbers of events under independent censoring and the corresponding sample size formula. The proposed log-rank tests are robust with respect to different data-generating processes and are adjusted for predictive covariates. It reduces to the Kong and Slud (1997, Biometrika 84, 847-862) setting in the case of a single event. The sample size formula is derived based on the asymptotic normality of the covariate-adjusted log-rank statistics under certain local alternatives and a working model for baseline covariates in the recurrent event data context. When the effect size is small and the baseline covariates do not contain significant information about event times, it reduces to the same form as that of Schoenfeld (1983, Biometrics (3)9, 499-503) for cases of a single event or independent event times within a subject. We carry out simulations to study the control of type I error and the comparison of powers between several methods in finite samples. The proposed sample size formula is illustrated using data from an rhDNase study.

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