
This article considers the practical problem in clinical and observational studies where multiple treatment or prognostic groups are compared and the observed survival data are subject to right censoring. Two possible formulations of multiple comparisons are suggested. Multiple Comparisons with a Control (MCC) compare every other group to a control group with respect to survival outcomes, for determining which groups are associated with lower risk than the control. Multiple Comparisons with the Best (MCB) compare each group to the truly minimum risk group and identify the groups that are either with the minimum risk or the practically minimum risk. To make a causal statement, potential confounding effects need to be adjusted in the comparisons. Propensity score based adjustment is popular in causal inference and can effectively reduce the confounding bias. Based on a propensity-score-stratified Cox proportional hazards model, the approaches of MCC test and MCB simultaneous confidence intervals for general linear models with normal error outcome are extended to survival outcome. This paper specifies the assumptions for causal inference on survival outcomes within a potential outcome framework, develops testing procedures for multiple comparisons and provides simultaneous confidence intervals. The proposed methods are applied to two real data sets from cancer studies for illustration, and a simulation study is also presented.
multiple comparisons, simultaneous confidence intervals, propensity score stratification, causal inference, Computational methods for problems pertaining to statistics, Paired and multiple comparisons; multiple testing, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis
multiple comparisons, simultaneous confidence intervals, propensity score stratification, causal inference, Computational methods for problems pertaining to statistics, Paired and multiple comparisons; multiple testing, Applications of statistics to biology and medical sciences; meta analysis
| 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). | 6 | |
| 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). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
