Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Optimal Weighted Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney Test for Prioritized Outcomes

verfasst von : Roland A. Matsouaka, Aneesh B. Singhal, Rebecca A. Betensky

Erschienen in: New Frontiers of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We consider a two-group randomized clinical trial of prioritized endpoints, where mortality affects the assessment of a follow-up continuous outcome. With the continuous outcome as the principal outcome, we combine it with mortality via the worst-rank paradigm into a single composite endpoint. Then, we develop a weighted Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test statistic to analyze the data. We determine the optimal weights for the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test statistic that maximize its power. We provide the rationale for the weights and their implications in the application of the method. In addition, we derive a formula for its power and demonstrate its accuracy in simulations. Finally, we apply the method to data from an acute ischemic stroke clinical trial of normobaric oxygen therapy.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel A Selective Overview of Semiparametric Mixture of Regression Models
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
Adams H., Jr., Davis, P., Leira, E., Chang, K., Bendixen, B., Clarke, W., et al. (1999). Baseline NIH stroke scale score strongly predicts outcome after stroke: A report of the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Neurology, 53(1), 126.CrossRef
Ahmad, Y., Nijjer, S., Cook, C. M., El-Harasis, M., Graby, J., Petraco, R., et al. (2015). A new method of applying randomised control study data to the individual patient: A novel quantitative patient-centred approach to interpreting composite end points. International Journal of Cardiology, 195, 216–224.CrossRef
Allen, L. A., Hernandez, A. F., O’Connor, C. M., & Felker, G. M. (2009). End points for clinical trials in acute heart failure syndromes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 53(24), 2248–2258.CrossRef
Anker, S. D., & Mcmurray, J. J. (2012). Time to move on from’time-to-first’: Should all events be included in the analysis of clinical trials? European Heart Journal, 33(22), 2764–2765.CrossRef
Anker, S. D., Schroeder, S., Atar, D., Bax, J. J., Ceconi, C., Cowie, M. R., et al. (2016). Traditional and new composite endpoints in heart failure clinical trials: Facilitating comprehensive efficacy assessments and improving trial efficiency. European Journal of Heart Failure, 18(5):482–489.CrossRef
Anstrom, K. J., & Eisenstein, E. L. From batting average to wins above replacement to composite end points-refining clinical research using baseball statistical methods. American Heart Journal, 161(5), 805–806.CrossRef
Armstrong, P. W., & Westerhout, C. M. (2013). The power of more than one. Circulation 127, 665–667.CrossRef
Armstrong, P. W., & Westerhout, C. M. (2017). Composite end points in clinical research. Circulation, 135(23), 2299–2307.CrossRef
Armstrong, P. W., Westerhout, C. M., Van de Werf, F., Califf, R. M., Welsh, R. C., Wilcox, R. G., et al. (2011). Refining clinical trial composite outcomes: An application to the assessment of the safety and efficacy of a new thrombolytic–3 (assent-3) trial. American Heart Journal, 161(5), 848–854.CrossRef
Bakal, J. A., Roe, M. T., Ohman, E. M., Goodman, S. G., Fox, K. A., Zheng, Y., et al. (2015). Applying novel methods to assess clinical outcomes: Insights from the trilogy ACS trial. European Heart Journal, 36(6), 385–392.CrossRef
Bakal, J. A., Westerhout, C. M., Cantor, W. J., Fernández-Avilés, F., Welsh, R. C., Fitchett, D., et al. (2012). Evaluation of early percutaneous coronary intervention vs. standard therapy after fibrinolysis for st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contribution of weighting the composite endpoint. European Heart Journal, 34(12), 903–908.CrossRef
Bebu, I., & Lachin, J. M. (2015). Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components. Biostatistics, 17(1), 178–187.MathSciNet
Berry, J. D., Miller, R., Moore, D. H., Cudkowicz, M. E., Van Den Berg, L. H., Kerr, D. A., et al. (2013). The combined assessment of function and survival (CAFS): A new endpoint for ALS clinical trials. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, 14(3), 162–168.CrossRef
Bonate, P. L. (2000). Analysis of pretest-posttest designs. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRef
Braunwald, E., Antman, E. M., Beasley, J. W., Califf, R. M., Cheitlin, M. D., Hochman, J. S., et al. (2002). ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non–st-segment elevation myocardial infarction–summary article: A report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 40(7), 1366–1374.
Brittain, E., Palensky, J., Blood, J., & Wittes, J. (1997). Blinded subjective rankings as a method of assessing treatment effect: A large sample example from the systolic hypertension in the elderly program (SHEP). Statistics in Medicine, 16(6), 681–693.CrossRef
Brown, P. M., Anstrom, K. J., Felker, G. M., & Ezekowitz, J. A. (2016). Composite end points in acute heart failure research: Data simulations illustrate the limitations. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 32(11), 1356.e21–1356.e28.CrossRef
Brunner, E., & Munzel, U. (2000). The nonparametric Behrens-Fisher problem: Asymptotic theory and a small-sample approximation. Biometrical Journal, 42(1), 17–25.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Bruno, A., Saha, C., & Williams, L.S. (2006). Using change in the national institutes of health stroke scale to measure treatment effect in acute stroke trials. Stroke, 37(3), 920–921.CrossRef
Buyse, M. (2010). Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem. Statistics in Medicine, 29(30), 3245–3257MathSciNetCrossRef
Campbell, D. T., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). A primer on regression artifacts. New York: Guilford Publications.
Chung, E., & Romano, J. P. (2016). Asymptotically valid and exact permutation tests based on two-sample U-statistics. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 168, 97–105.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Claggett, B., Wei, L.-J., & Pfeffer, M. A. (2013). Moving beyond our comfort zone. European Heart Journal, 34(12), 869–871.CrossRef
Cordoba, G., Schwartz, L., Woloshin, S., Bae, H., & Gotzsche, P. (2010). Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 341, c3920.CrossRef
Davis, S. M., Koch, G. G., Davis, C., & LaVange, L. M. (2003). Statistical approaches to effectiveness measurement and outcome-driven re-randomizations in the clinical antipsychotic trials of intervention effectiveness (CATIE) studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29(1), 73.CrossRef
DeCoster, T., Willis, M., Marsh, J., Williams, T., Nepola, J., Dirschl, D., & Hurwitz, S. (1999). Rank order analysis of tibial plafond fractures: Does injury or reduction predict outcome? Foot & Ankle International, 20(1), 44–49.CrossRef
Dmitrienko, A., D’Agostino, R. B., & Huque, M. F. (2013). Key multiplicity issues in clinical drug development. Statistics in Medicine, 32(7), 1079–1111.MathSciNetCrossRef
Fay, M. P., & Proschan, M. A. (2010). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics Surveys, 4, 1–39.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Feldman, A., Baughman, K., Lee, W., Gottlieb, S., Weiss, J., Becker, L., & Strobeck, J. (1991). Usefulness of OPC-8212, a quinolinone derivative, for chronic congestive heart failure in patients with ischemic heart disease or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. The American Journal of Cardiology, 68(11), 1203–1210.CrossRef
Felker, G., Anstrom, K., & Rogers, J. (2008). A global ranking approach to end points in trials of mechanical circulatory support devices. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 14(5), 368–372.CrossRef
Felker, G. M., & Maisel, A. S. (2010). A global rank end point for clinical trials in acute heart failure. Circulation: Heart Failure, 3(5), 643–646.
Ferreira-Gonzalez, I., Permanyer-Miralda, G., Busse, J., Devereaux, P., Guyatt, G., Alonso-Coello, P., et al. (2009). Composite outcomes can distort the nature and magnitude of treatment benefits in clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 150(8), 566.CrossRef
Ferreira-González, I., Permanyer-Miralda, G., Busse, J. W., Bryant, D. M., Montori, V. M., Alonso-Coello, P., et al. (2007a). Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(7), 651–657.CrossRef
Ferreira-González, I., Permanyer-Miralda, G., Domingo-Salvany, A., Busse, J., Heels-Ansdell, D., Montori, V., et al. (2007b). Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. The BMJ, 334(7597), 786.CrossRef
Finkelstein, D., & Schoenfeld, D. (1999). Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 18(11), 1341–1354.CrossRef
Fisher, L. D. (1998). Self-designing clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 17(14), 1551–1562.CrossRef
Fitzmaurice, G. (2001). A conundrum in the analysis of change. Nutrition, 17(4), 360–361.CrossRef
Follmann, D., Duerr, A., Tabet, S., Gilbert, P., Moodie, Z., Fast, P., et al. (2007). Endpoints and regulatory issues in HIV vaccine clinical trials: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999), 44(1), 49.CrossRef
Follmann, D., Wittes, J., & Cutler, J. A. (1992). The use of subjective rankings in clinical trials with an application to cardiovascular disease. Statistics in Medicine, 11(4), 427–437.CrossRef
Freemantle, N., Calvert, M., Wood, J., Eastaugh, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). Composite outcomes in randomized trials: Greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA, 289(19), 2554.CrossRef
Gail, M. H., Mark, S. D., Carroll, R. J., Green, S. B., & Pee, D. (1996). On design considerations and randomization-based inference for community intervention trials. Statistics in Medicine, 15(11), 1069–1092.CrossRef
Gehan, E. A. (1965). A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika, 52(1–2), 203–223.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Gómez, G., & Lagakos, S. W. (2013). Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups. Statistics in Medicine, 32(5), 719–738.MathSciNetCrossRef
Gould, A. (1980). A new approach to the analysis of clinical drug trials with withdrawals. Biometrics, 36(4), 721–727.CrossRef
Grech, E., & Ramsdale, D. (2003). Acute coronary syndrome: Unstable angina and non-st segment elevation myocardial infarction. The BMJ, 326(7401), 1259.CrossRef
Hallstrom, A., Litwin, P., & Douglas Weaver, W. (1992). A method of assigning scores to the components of a composite outcome: An example from the MITI trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 13(2), 148–155.CrossRef
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1992). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (roc) curve. Radiology, 143(1), 29–36.CrossRef
Hariharan, S., McBride, M. A., & Cohen, E. P. (2003). Evolution of endpoints for renal transplant outcome. American Journal of Transplantation, 3(8), 933–941.CrossRef
Heddle, N. M., & Cook, R. J. (2011). Composite outcomes in clinical trials: What are they and when should they be used? Transfusion, 51(1), 11–13.CrossRef
Huang, P., Woolson, R. F., & O’Brien, P. C. (2008). A rank-based sample size method for multiple outcomes in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 27(16), 3084–3104.MathSciNetCrossRef
Huque, M. F., Alosh, M., & Bhore, R. (2011). Addressing multiplicity issues of a composite endpoint and its components in clinical trials. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 21(4), 610–634.MathSciNetCrossRef
Kaufman, K. D., Olsen, E. A., Whiting, D., Savin, R., DeVillez, R., Bergfeld, W., et al. (1998). Finasteride in the treatment of men with androgenetic alopecia. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 39(4), 578–589.CrossRef
Kawaguchi, A., Koch, G. G., & Wang, X. (2011). Stratified multivariate Mann–Whitney estimators for the comparison of two treatments with randomization based covariance adjustment. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 3(2), 217–231.CrossRef
Lachin, J. (1999). Worst-rank score analysis with informatively missing observations in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 20(5), 408–422.CrossRef
Li, D., Zhao, G., Paty, D., University of British Columbia MS/MRI Analysis Research Group, The SPECTRIMS Study Group. (2001). Randomized controlled trial of interferon-beta-1a in secondary progressive MS MRI results. Neurology, 56(11), 1505–1513.CrossRef
Lisa, A. B., & James, S. H. (1997). Rule-based ranking schemes for antiretroviral trials. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 1175–1191.CrossRef
Logan, B., & Tamhane, A. (2008). Superiority inferences on individual endpoints following noninferiority testing in clinical trials. Biometrical Journal, 50(5), 693–703.MathSciNetCrossRef
Lubsen, J., Just, H., Hjalmarsson, A., La Framboise, D., Remme, W., Heinrich-Nols, J., et al. (1996). Effect of pimobendan on exercise capacity in patients with heart failure: Main results from the Pimobendan in Congestive Heart Failure (PICO) trial. Heart, 76(3), 223.CrossRef
Lubsen, J., & Kirwan, B.-A. (2002). Combined endpoints: Can we use them? Statistics in Medicine, 21(19), 2959–2970.CrossRef
Luo, X., Qiu, J., Bai, S., & Tian, H. (2017). Weighted win loss approach for analyzing prioritized outcomes. Statistics in Medicine, 36(15), 2452–2465.MathSciNetCrossRef
Manja, V., AlBashir, S., & Guyatt, G. (2017). Criteria for use of composite end points for competing risks–a systematic survey of the literature with recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 82, 4–11.CrossRef
Mascha, E. J., & Turan, A. (2012). Joint hypothesis testing and gatekeeping procedures for studies with multiple endpoints. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 114(6), 1304–1317.CrossRef
Matsouaka, R. A., & Betensky, R. A. (2015). Power and sample size calculations for the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test in the presence of death-censored observations. Statistics in Medicine, 34(3), 406–431.MathSciNetCrossRef
Minas, G., Rigat, F., Nichols, T. E., Aston, J. A., & Stallard, N. (2012). A hybrid procedure for detecting global treatment effects in multivariate clinical trials: Theory and applications to fMRI studies. Statistics in Medicine, 31(3), 253–268.MathSciNetCrossRef
Moyé, L. (2013). Multiple analyses in clinical trials: Fundamentals for investigators. Berlin: Springer.MATH
Moyé, L., Davis, B., & Hawkins, C. (1992). Analysis of a clinical trial involving a combined mortality and adherence dependent interval censored endpoint. Statistics in Medicine, 11(13), 1705–1717.CrossRef
National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute). (2007). Third expert panel on the management of asthma. Expert panel report 3: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Neaton, J., Gray, G., Zuckerman, B., & Konstam, M. (2005). Key issues in end point selection for heart failure trials: Composite end points. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 11(8), 567–575.CrossRef
Neaton, J. D., Wentworth, D. N., Rhame, F., Hogan, C., Abrams, D. I., & Deyton, L. (1994). Considerations in choice of a clinical endpoint for aids clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 13(19–20), 2107–2125.CrossRef
Newcombe, R. G. (2006). Confidence intervals for an effect size measure based on the Mann–Whitney statistic. part 2: Asymptotic methods and evaluation. Statistics in Medicine, 25(4), 559–573.MathSciNetCrossRef
Oakes, J. M., & Feldman, H. A. (2001). Statistical power for nonequivalent pretest-posttest designs the impact of change-score versus ANCOVA models. Evaluation Review, 25(1), 3–28.CrossRef
O’Brien, P. C. (1984). Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics, 40, 1079–1087.MathSciNetCrossRef
Parsons, M., Spratt, N., Bivard, A., Campbell, B., Chung, K., Miteff, F., et al. (2012). A randomized trial of tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(12), 1099–1107.CrossRef
Pearl, J. (2014). Lord’s paradox revisited–(oh lord! kumbaya!). Tech. rep., Citeseer.
Pocock, S. J., Ariti, C. A., Collier, T. J., & Wang, D. (2011). The win ratio: A new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. European Heart Journal, 33(2), 176–182.CrossRef
Pratt, J. W. (1964). Robustness of some procedures for the two-sample location problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 59, 665–680.MathSciNet
Prieto-Merino, D., Smeeth, L., van Staa, T. P., & Roberts, I. (2013). Dangers of non-specific composite outcome measures in clinical trials. The BMJ, 347, f6782.CrossRef
Ramchandani, R., Schoenfeld, D. A., & Finkelstein, D. M. (2016). Global rank tests for multiple, possibly censored, outcomes. Biometrics, 72, 926–935.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Röhmel, J., Gerlinger, C., Benda, N., & Läuter, J. (2006). On testing simultaneously non-inferiority in two multiple primary endpoints and superiority in at least one of them. Biometrical Journal, 48(6), 916–933.MathSciNetCrossRef
Rosner, B. (2015). Fundamentals of biostatistics. Toronto: Nelson Education.
Ross, S. (2007). Composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Arguments for and against. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 196(2), 119–e1.MathSciNetCrossRef
Rowan, J. A., Hague, W. M., Gao, W., Battin, M. R., & Moore, M. P. (2008). Metformin versus insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(19), 2003–2015.CrossRef
Rubin, D. B. (2006). Rejoinder: Causal inference through potential outcomes and principal stratification: Application to studies with” censoring” due to death. Statistical Science, 21(3), 319–321.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef
Sampson, U. K., Metcalfe, C., Pfeffer, M. A., Solomon, S. D., & Zou, K. H. (2010). Composite outcomes: Weighting component events according to severity assisted interpretation but reduced statistical power. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(10), 1156–1158CrossRef
Samson, K. (2013). News from the AAN annual meeting: Why a trial of normobaric oxygen in acute ischemic stroke was halted early. Neurology Today, 13(10), 34–35.CrossRef
Sankoh, A. J., Li, H., & D’Agostino, R. B. (2014). Use of composite endpoints in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 33(27), 4709–4714.MathSciNetCrossRef
Senn, S. (2006). Change from baseline and analysis of covariance revisited. Statistics in Medicine, 25(24), 4334–4344.MathSciNetCrossRef
Shahar, E., & Shahar, D. J. (2012). Causal diagrams and change variables. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(1), 143–148.CrossRef
Singhal, A., Benner, T., Roccatagliata, L., Koroshetz, W., Schaefer, P., Lo, E., et al. (2005). A pilot study of normobaric oxygen therapy in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke, 36(4), 797.CrossRef
Singhal, A. B. (2007). A review of oxygen therapy in ischemic stroke. Neurological Research, 29(2), 173–183.CrossRef
Spencer, S., Mayer, B., Bendall, K. L., & Bateman, E. D. (2007). Validation of a guideline-based composite outcome assessment tool for asthma control. Respiratory Research, 8(1), 26.CrossRef
Subherwal, S., Anstrom, K. J., Jones, W. S., Felker, M. G., Misra, S., Conte, M. S., et al. (2012). Use of alternative methodologies for evaluation of composite end points in trials of therapies for critical limb ischemia. American Heart Journal, 164(3), 277.CrossRef
Sun, H., Davison, B. A., Cotter, G., Pencina, M. J., & Koch, G. G. (2012). Evaluating treatment efficacy by multiple end points in phase ii acute heart failure clinical trials analyzing data using a global method. Circulation: Heart Failure, 5(6), 742–749.
Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2010). Composite end points in randomized trials: There is no free lunch. JAMA, 303(3), 267–268.CrossRef
Tyler, K. M., Normand, S.-L. T., & Horton, N. J. (2011). The use and abuse of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled depression trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 32(2), 299–304.CrossRef
van Breukelen, G. J. (2013). ANCOVA versus CHANGE from baseline in nonrandomized studies: The difference. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(6), 895–922.CrossRef
Van Elteren, P. (1960). On the combination of independent two-sample tests of Wilcoxon. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 37, 351–361.MathSciNetMATH
Wen, X., Hartzema, A., Delaney, J. A., Brumback, B., Liu, X., Egerman, R., et al. (2017). Combining adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes for women exposed to antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy, using a latent trait model. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 17(1), 10.CrossRef
Willett, J. B. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. Review of Research in Education, 15, 345–422.
Wilson, R. F., & Berger, A. K. (2011). Are all end points created equal? The case for weighting. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 57(5), 546–548.CrossRef
Young, F. B., Weir, C. J., Lees, K. R., & GAIN International Trial Steering Committee and Investigators. (2005). Comparison of the national institutes of health stroke scale with disability outcome measures in acute stroke trials. Stroke, 36(10), 2187–2192.CrossRef
Zhang, J., Quan, H., Ng, J., & Stepanavage, M. E. (1997). Some statistical methods for multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 18(3), 204–221.CrossRef
Zhao, Y. (2006). Sample size estimation for the van Elteren test—a stratified Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Statistics in Medicine, 25(15), 2675–2687.MathSciNetCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Optimal Weighted Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney Test for Prioritized Outcomes
verfasst von
Roland A. Matsouaka
Aneesh B. Singhal
Rebecca A. Betensky
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
New Frontiers of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99388-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-99389-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99389-8_1