 |
|
Assessing Differences in Clinical Trials Comparing Surgical vs Nonsurgical TherapyUsing Common (Statistical) Sense
George Howard, DrPH;
Lloyd E. Chambless, PhD;
Richard A. Kronmal, PhD
JAMA. 1997;278(17):1432-1436.
Abstract
| |
The statement of hypotheses and choice of statistical tests in clinical trials that compare surgical with nonsurgical treatment are complicated by the likelihood of excess risk in the surgical group during the perioperative period but lower risk after that compared with the more uniform risk in the nonsurgical group. Commonly used statistical survival analyses implicitly assume a constant ratio of risks in the 2 groups during the follow-up period. However, the changing pattern of risk for one treatment but not the other implies that the assessment of the relative efficacy of the treatments varies with the length of the follow-up. As such, determining whether survival curves for the 2 groups are different may not translate easily into selecting the best treatment. Alternative statements of the hypothesis based on consideration of the time horizon of patients and on clinical judgment may be more consistent with the goals of the study. Regardless of the choice of a statistical test, the choice of treatment is a decision specific to the individual patient and should be influenced by the patient's life expectancy, attitude toward taking risks, quality of life, and cost considerations. When the survival curves cross, there is a trade-off between the risk of surgery and the increase in life expectancy among the survivors of surgery. Accordingly, assessment of differences in outcomes in clinical trials comparing surgical vs nonsurgical therapy should provide both a conclusion about whether 1 treatment can reasonably be considered best for most patients and should provide information to the individual patient and physician on the expected outcome to aid in the decision-making process.
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Public Health Sciences, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC (Dr Howard); the Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Dr Chambless); and the Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Kronmal).
Footnotes
Reprints: George Howard, DrPH, Department of Public Health Sciences, Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED LETTER
Clinical Trials Comparing Surgical vs Nonsurgical Therapy
Lawrence Bonchek, George Howard, and Richard A. Kronmal
JAMA. 1998;279(8):584.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The Role of NETT in Emphysema Research
Wise and Drummond
Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008;5:385-392.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Early Viewing of Noninferiority Trials in Progress
Dignam
JCO 2005;23:5461-5463.
FULL TEXT
Long-Term Outcomes of Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting versus Stent Implantation
Hannan et al.
NEJM 2005;352:2174-2183.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patients at High Risk of Death after Lung-Volume-Reduction Surgery
National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group
NEJM 2001;345:1075-1083.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Contralateral Occlusion on Long-Term Efficacy of Endarterectomy in the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS)
Baker et al.
Stroke 2000;31:2330-2334.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lung Volume Reduction Surgery . Is Less Really More?
FESSLER and WISE
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1999;159:1031-1035.
FULL TEXT
The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points
Rose et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1999;67:723-730.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A comparison of three-year survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
Hannan et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:63-72.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Trials Comparing Surgical vs Nonsurgical Therapy
Bonchek et al.
JAMA 1998;279:584-584.
FULL TEXT
|
