
AbstractThe cumulative incidence function is widely reported in competing risks studies, with group differences assessed by an extension of the log‐rank test. However, simple, interpretable summaries of group differences are not available. An adaptation of the proportional hazards model to the cumulative incidence function is often employed, but the interpretation of the hazard ratio may be somewhat awkward, unlike the usual survival set‐up. We propose nonparametric inferences for general summary measures, which may be time‐varying, and for time‐averaged versions of the measures. Theoretical justification is provided using counting process techniques. A real data example illustrates the practical utility of the methods. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Survival Rate, Models, Statistical, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Incidence, Survival Analysis, Statistics, Nonparametric, Bone Marrow Transplantation, Proportional Hazards Models
Survival Rate, Models, Statistical, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Incidence, Survival Analysis, Statistics, Nonparametric, Bone Marrow Transplantation, Proportional Hazards Models
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 43 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
