On approximate equality of Z-values of the statistical tests for win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit)

Dong et al. (2023) showed that the win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) can complement each another to demonstrate the strength of treatment effects in randomized trials with prioritized multiple outcomes. This result was built on the connections among the point and variance estimates of the three statistics, and the approximate equality of Z-values in their statistical tests. However, the impact of this approximation was not clear. This Discussion refines this approach and shows that the approximate equality of Z-values for the win statistics holds more generally. Thus, the three win statistics consistently yield closely similar p-values. In addition, our simulations show an example that the naive approach without adjustment for censoring bias may produce a completely opposite conclusion from the true results, whereas the IPCW (inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting) approach can effectively adjust the win statistics to the corresponding true values (i.e. IPCW-adjusted win statistics are unbiased estimators of treatment effect).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Published
2024-10-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2024.2374857
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.71
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

On approximate equality of Z-values of the statistical tests for win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit)

Ran Liao, Margaret Gamalo, Ying Lü, Gaohong Dong et al.
1 citations
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
0.71
article

On approximate equality of Z-values of the statistical tests for win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit)

Ran Liao, Margaret Gamalo, Ying Lü, Gaohong Dong, David C. Hoaglin, Ying Cui, Dacheng Liu
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Dong et al. (2023) showed that the win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) can complement each another to demonstrate the strength of treatment effects in randomized trials with prioritized multiple outcomes. This result was built on the connections among the point and variance estimates of the three statistics, and the approximate equality of Z-values in their statistical tests. However, the impact of this approximation was not clear. This Discussion refines this approach and shows that the approximate equality of Z-values for the win statistics holds more generally. Thus, the three win statistics consistently yield closely similar p-values. In addition, our simulations show an example that the naive approach without adjustment for censoring bias may produce a completely opposite conclusion from the true results, whereas the IPCW (inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting) approach can effectively adjust the win statistics to the corresponding true values (i.e. IPCW-adjusted win statistics are unbiased estimators of treatment effect).

Journal of Biopharmaceutical StatisticsVol. 35(3)
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US), Eli Lilly (United States) (US), Pfizer (United States) (US), BeiGene (China) (CN), Boehringer Ingelheim (Egypt) (EG), Boehringer Ingelheim (United States) (US), UMass Memorial Medical Center (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
0.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.