Paper detail

Success-Odds: An improved Win-Ratio

Multiple and combined endpoints involving also non-normal outcomes appear in many clinical trials in various areas in medicine. In some cases, the outcome can be observed only on an ordinal or dichotomous scale. Then the success of two therapies is assessed by comparing the outcome of two randomly selected patients from the two therapy groups by &#39;better&#39;, &#39;equal&#39; or &#39;worse&#39;. These outcomes can be described by the probabilities $p^-=P(X<Y)$, $p_0=P(X=Y)$, and $p^+ =P(X~>~Y)$. For a clinician, however, these quantities are less intuitive. Therefore, Noether (1987) introduced the quantity $λ=p^+ / p^-$ assuming continuous distributions. The same quantity was used by Pocock et al. (2012) and by Wang and Pocock (2016) also for general non-normal outcomes and has been called &#39;win-ratio&#39; $λ_{WR}$. Unlike Noether (1987), Wang and Pocock (2016) explicitly allowed for ties in the data. It is the aim of this manuscript to investigate the properties of $λ_{WR}$ in case of ties. It turns out that it has the strange property of becoming larger if the data are observed less accurately, i.e. include more ties. Thus, in case of ties, the win-ratio looses its appealing property to describe and quantify an intuitive and well interpretable treatment effect. Therefore, a slight modification of $λ_{WR} = θ/ (1-θ)$ is suggested, namely the so-called &#39;success-odds&#39; where $θ=p^+ + \frac12 p_0$ is called a success of a therapy if $θ>\frac12$. In the case of no ties, $λ_{SO}$ is identical to $λ_{WR}$. A test for the hypothesis $λ_{SO}=1$ and range preserving confidence intervals for $λ_{SO}$ are derived. By two counterexamples it is demonstrated that generalizations of both the win-ratio and the success-odds to more than two treatments or to stratified designs are not straightforward and need more detailed considerations.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.