Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

124
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
124
Clinical Trials01:16

Clinical Trials

6.6K
Clinical trials are prospective experimental studies conducted on humans to determine the safety and efficacy of treatments, drugs, diet methods, and medical devices. Using statistics in clinical trials enables researchers to derive reasonable and accurate conclusions from the collected data, allowing them to make wise decisions in uncertain situations. In medical research, statistical methods are crucial for preventing errors and bias.
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
6.6K
Hazard Ratio01:12

Hazard Ratio

99
The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...
99
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

87
Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
87
Clinical Trials: Overview01:11

Clinical Trials: Overview

2.9K
Clinical development focuses on how the drug will interact with the human body and encompasses four key phases of clinical trials, each serving a specific purpose in assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. These phases overlap and build upon one another. Phase I involves a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-80 individuals) or, in cases where significant toxicity is expected, patients with the targeted disease, such as cancer or AIDS. The volunteers are tested for...
2.9K
Blinding01:11

Blinding

2.4K
Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
2.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Contemporary Heart Failure Patients: An Analysis From the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

JACC. Heart failure·2026
Same author

Proteomic patterns according to ejection fraction: an EMPEROR-programme analysis.

European journal of heart failure·2026
Same author

Patient-Reported Outcomes as End Points in Heart Failure Trials.

Circulation·2025
Same author

Recurrent Events in Cardiovascular Trials: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology·2023
Same author

Blinded Withdrawal of Long-Term Randomized Treatment With Empagliflozin or Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure.

Circulation·2023
Same author

The win ratio method in heart failure trials: lessons learnt from EMPULSE.

European journal of heart failure·2023

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 14, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.0K

Competing Risks in Clinical Trials: Do They Matter and How Should We Account for Them?

John Gregson1, Stuart J Pocock1, Stefan D Anker2

  • 1Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology
|September 4, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study introduces a new multiple imputation method to accurately analyze competing risks, like noncardiovascular death, in clinical trials. This approach improves upon traditional methods that can be misleading when dealing with patient mortality data.

Keywords:
Cox proportional hazards modelFine and Gray modelclinical trialscompeting risksevent outcomesmultiple imputation

More Related Videos

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
04:57

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data

Published on: October 23, 2020

10.1K
Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
06:46

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery

Published on: September 27, 2024

229

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 14, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.0K
Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data
04:57

Establishing a Competing Risk Regression Nomogram Model for Survival Data

Published on: October 23, 2020

10.1K
Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
06:46

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery

Published on: September 27, 2024

229

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trials Methodology
  • Epidemiology

Background:

  • Patient follow-up in randomized trials often involves deaths unrelated to the primary outcome, termed competing risks.
  • Conventional statistical methods (e.g., Cox models) may misrepresent patient data by assuming survivors are similar to those who died.
  • Existing competing risk models, like the Fine and Gray model, can be misused and lead to misleading conclusions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose and evaluate an alternative statistical approach for handling competing risks in clinical trial data.
  • To develop a method that plausibly accounts for the high risk of the outcome of interest in patients who experience a competing event.
  • To provide a logical framework for assessing the impact of competing risks without assuming a unique solution.

Main Methods:

  • Development of a novel multiple imputation approach to model competing risks.
  • Application of the proposed method to data from three cardiovascular clinical trials.
  • Validation through simulation studies to assess the performance and robustness of the method.

Main Results:

  • The proposed multiple imputation method offers a plausible framework for analyzing competing risks.
  • Illustrative examples in cardiovascular trials and simulations highlight the limitations of conventional methods.
  • The approach provides a logical way to explore the impact of competing risks, acknowledging inherent uncertainties.

Conclusions:

  • Conventional analyses of competing risks in clinical trials can be misleading.
  • The proposed multiple imputation method provides a more appropriate and nuanced approach to handling competing risks.
  • Practical recommendations are offered for the improved analysis of competing risks in future clinical trials.