ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Application of the estimand framework for an emulated trial using reference based multiple imputation to investigate informative censoring.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defining estimands in anaesthesia clinical trials: a scoping review and framework.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ICH E9 (R1) addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity analysis in Clinical trials proposes a framework for the design and analysis of clinical trials aimed at improving clarity around the definition of the targeted treatment effect (the estimand) of a study.
methodsWe adopt the estimand framework in the context of a study using "trial emulation" to estimate the risk of pneumocystis pneumonia, an opportunistic disease contracted by people living with HIV and AIDS having a weakened immune system, when considering two antibiotic treatment regimes for stopping antibiotic prophylaxis treatment against this disease. A "while on treatment" strategy has been implemented for post-randomisation (intercurrent) events. We then perform a sensitivity analysis using reference based multiple imputation to model a scenario in which patients lost to follow-up stop taking prophylaxis.
resultsThe primary analysis indicated a protective effect for the new regime which used viral suppression as prophylaxis stopping criteria (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval [0.69, 0.89], p < 0.001). For the sensitivity analysis, when we apply the "jump to off prophylaxis" approach, the hazard ratio is almost the same compared to that from the primary analysis (HR 0.80 [0.69, 0.95], p = 0.009). The sensitivity analysis confirmed that the new regime exhibits a clear improvement over the existing guidelines for PcP prophylaxis when those lost to follow-up "jump to off prophylaxis".
conclusionsOur application using reference based multiple imputation demonstrates the method's flexibility and simplicity for sensitivity analyses in the context of the estimand framework for (emulated) trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.