Volume 29, Issue 30
Research Article

Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two‐sample problem

Marc Buyse

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: marc.buyse@iddi.com

International Drug Development Institute, 30 avenue provinciale, 1340 Louvain‐la‐Neuve, Belgium

Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics (I‐BioStat), Hasselt University, Belgium

International Drug Development Institute, 30 avenue provinciale, 1340 Louvain‐la‐Neuve, BelgiumSearch for more papers by this author
First published: 16 December 2010
Citations: 65

Abstract

This paper extends the idea behind the U‐statistic of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test to perform generalized pairwise comparisons between two groups of observations. The observations are outcomes captured by a single variable, possibly repeatedly measured, or by several variables of any type (e.g. discrete, continuous, time to event). When several outcomes are considered, they must be prioritized. We show that generalized pairwise comparisons extend well‐known non‐parametric tests, and illustrate their interest using data from two randomized clinical trials. We also show that they lead to a general measure of the difference between the groups called the ‘proportion in favor of treatment’, denoted Δ, which is related to traditional measures of treatment effect for a single variable. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 65

  • Outcome measures in multimodal rectal cancer trials, The Lancet Oncology, 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30024-3, 21, 5, (e252-e264), (2020).
  • A methodological framework for drug development in rare diseases. The CRESim program: Epilogue and perspectives, Therapies, 10.1016/j.therap.2020.02.005, (2020).
  • The win ratio approach for composite endpoints: practical guidance based on previous experience, European Heart Journal, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa665, (2020).
  • Drug Development in Kidney Disease: Proceedings From a Multistakeholder Conference, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.05.026, (2020).
  • The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2020.1757692, (1-18), (2020).
  • Evaluation of inferential methods for the net benefit and win ratio statistics, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2020.1730873, (1-18), (2020).
  • Assessing Treatment Benefit in Immuno-oncology, Statistics in Biosciences, 10.1007/s12561-020-09268-1, (2020).
  • Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial, Clinical Trials, 10.1177/1740774520941441, (174077452094144), (2020).
  • Testing for Trend in Benefit-Risk Analysis with Prioritized Multiple Outcomes, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2019.1690037, (1-10), (2020).
  • A new measure of treatment effect in clinical trials involving competing risks based on generalized pairwise comparisons, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201900354, 0, 0, (2020).
  • A class of proportional win‐fractions regression models for composite outcomes, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.13382, 0, 0, (2020).
  • Robust design of iterative learning control for a batch process described by 2D Roesser system with packet dropouts and time‐varying delays, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 10.1002/rnc.4812, 30, 3, (1035-1049), (2019).
  • The win ratio: Impact of censoring and follow‐up time and use with nonproportional hazards, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1977, 19, 3, (168-177), (2019).
  • Analysis of ordered composite endpoints, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8431, 39, 5, (602-616), (2019).
  • Introducing a new estimator and test for the weighted all-cause hazard ratio, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10.1186/s12874-019-0765-1, 19, 1, (2019).
  • Generalized pairwise comparison methods to analyze (non)prioritized composite endpoints, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8388, 38, 30, (5641-5656), (2019).
  • Intestinal bacterial β-glucuronidase as a possible predictive biomarker of irinotecan-induced diarrhea severity, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.03.002, (2019).
  • The Benefit-Risk Balance of Nab-Paclitaxel in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Pancreas, 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001234, 48, 2, (275-280), (2019).
  • Quantifying treatment effects using the personalized chance of longer survival, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8363, 38, 28, (5317-5331), (2019).
  • Prioritized concordance index for hierarchical survival outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8157, 38, 15, (2868-2882), (2019).
  • Assessing Long-Term Survival Benefits of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Using the Net Survival Benefit, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 10.1093/jnci/djz030, 111, 11, (1186-1191), (2019).
  • Presenting Risks and Benefits: Helping the Data Monitoring Committee Do Its Job, Annals of Internal Medicine, 10.7326/M19-1491, (2019).
  • Evaluating case management as a complex intervention: Lessons for the future, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0224286, 14, 10, (e0224286), (2019).
  • The win ratio: On interpretation and handling of ties, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2019.1575279, (1-14), (2019).
  • Aortic Stenosis and Heart Failure: Disease Ascertainment and Statistical Considerations for Clinical Trials, Cardiac Failure Review, 10.15420/cfr.2018.41.2, 5, 2, (99-105), (2019).
  • Efficient Estimation of Mann–Whitney-Type Effect Measures for Right-Censored Survival Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials, Statistics in Biosciences, 10.1007/s12561-019-09246-2, (2019).
  • Graphing the Win Ratio and its components over time, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7895, 38, 1, (53-61), (2018).
  • Multistate modeling and simulation of patient trajectories after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation to inform drug development, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201700285, 61, 5, (1303-1313), (2018).
  • Optimal Weighted Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney Test for Prioritized Outcomes, New Frontiers of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, 10.1007/978-3-319-99389-8_1, (3-40), (2018).
  • Validation of reference and identity-defining genes in human mesenchymal stem cells cultured under unrelated fetal bovine serum batches for basic science and clinical application, Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, 10.1007/s12015-018-9822-0, 14, 6, (837-846), (2018).
  • Properties of composite time to first event versus joint marginal analyses of multiple outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7849, 37, 27, (3918-3930), (2018).
  • Use of composite outcomes to assess risk–benefit in clinical trials, Clinical Trials, 10.1177/1740774518784010, 15, 4, (352-358), (2018).
  • The win ratio approach did not alter study conclusions and may mitigate concerns regarding unequal composite end points in kidney transplant trials, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.001, 98, (9-15), (2018).
  • Methods for the analysis of multiple endpoints in small populations: A review, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2018.1489402, (1-29), (2018).
  • A weighted combined effect measure for the analysis of a composite time‐to‐first‐event endpoint with components of different clinical relevance, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7531, 37, 5, (749-767), (2017).
  • Some statistical considerations in the clinical development of cancer immunotherapies, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1835, 17, 1, (49-60), (2017).
  • Understanding and Communicating Measures of Treatment Effect on Survival: Can We Do Better?, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 10.1093/jnci/djx179, 110, 3, (232-240), (2017).
  • Weighted win loss approach for analyzing prioritized outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7284, 36, 15, (2452-2465), (2017).
  • Other Weighted Effect Measures, Planning and Analyzing Clinical Trials with Composite Endpoints, 10.1007/978-3-319-73770-6_14, (157-162), (2017).
  • Weighted Composite Binary Endpoint, Planning and Analyzing Clinical Trials with Composite Endpoints, 10.1007/978-3-319-73770-6_12, (145-149), (2017).
  • End points and statistical considerations in immuno-oncology trials: impact on multiple myeloma, Future Oncology, 10.2217/fon-2016-0504, 13, 13, (1181-1193), (2017).
  • Weighted Composite Time-to-Event Endpoint, Planning and Analyzing Clinical Trials with Composite Endpoints, 10.1007/978-3-319-73770-6_13, (151-155), (2017).
  • Power and Sample Size Estimation for Nonparametric Composite Endpoints: Practical Implementation using Data Simulations, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 10.22237/jmasm/1509495120, 16, 2, (215-230), (2017).
  • The stratified win ratio, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2017.1397007, (1-19), (2017).
  • An extension of generalized pairwise comparisons for prioritized outcomes in the presence of censoring, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280216658320, 27, 4, (1230-1239), (2016).
  • Weighted analysis of composite endpoints with simultaneous inference for flexible weight constraints, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7147, 36, 3, (442-454), (2016).
  • Global rank tests for multiple, possibly censored, outcomes, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12475, 72, 3, (926-935), (2016).
  • A win ratio approach to comparing continuous non‐normal outcomes in clinical trials, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1743, 15, 3, (238-245), (2016).
  • An assessment of the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, Oncotarget, 10.18632/oncotarget.12761, 7, 50, (82953-82960), (2016).
  • The win ratio approach to analyzing composite outcomes: An application to the EVOLVE trial, Contemporary Clinical Trials, 10.1016/j.cct.2016.04.001, 48, (119-124), (2016).
  • Totality of outcomes: A different paradigm in assessing interventions for treatment of tuberculosis, Journal of Clinical Tuberculosis and Other Mycobacterial Diseases, 10.1016/j.jctube.2016.05.004, 4, (9-13), (2016).
  • Traditional and new composite endpoints in heart failure clinical trials: facilitating comprehensive efficacy assessments and improving trial efficiency, European Journal of Heart Failure, 10.1002/ejhf.516, 18, 5, (482-489), (2016).
  • Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components, Biostatistics, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxv032, 17, 1, (178-187), (2015).
  • Assessing the benefit–risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer, British Journal of Cancer, 10.1038/bjc.2015.55, 112, 6, (971-976), (2015).
  • Design of Major Randomized Trials, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.036, 66, 24, (2757-2766), (2015).
  • Biomarker Validation: Common Data Analysis Concerns, The Oncologist, 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0061, 19, 8, (886-891), (2014).
  • Generalized Pairwise Comparisons, Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, 10.1002/9781118445112, (1-9), (2014).
  • Multiple Prioritized Outcomes, Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, 10.1002/9781118445112, (1-9), (2014).
  • Opportunities and challenges of combined effect measures based on prioritized outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6010, 33, 7, (1104-1120), (2013).
  • Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials With Multiple Objectives, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2013.807749, 5, 4, (321-337), (2013).
  • DiaSurg 2 trial - surgical vs. medical treatment of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus in patients with a body mass index between 26 and 35 kg/m2: study protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter trial - DRKS00004550, Trials, 10.1186/1745-6215-14-183, 14, 1, (183), (2013).
  • Dropout in crossover and longitudinal studies: Is complete case so bad?, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280212445838, 23, 1, (60-73), (2012).
  • Estimating treatment effects in a two‐arm parallel trial of a continuous outcome, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.5556, 32, 6, (941-955), (2012).
  • Probabilistic index models, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 10.1111/j.1467-9868.2011.01020.x, 74, 4, (623-671), (2012).
  • Investigating genetic correlation and causality between nicotine dependence and ADHD in a broader psychiatric context, American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 10.1002/ajmg.b.32822, 0, 0, (undefined).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.