A SIMULATION STUDY OF THE SIZE AND POWER OF SOME TWO-SAMPLE TESTS FOR UNEQUALLY CENSORED SURVIVAL DATA (RANK TESTS, LOGRANK, PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS, WILCOXON TESTS, EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION)

Sizes and power of selected two-sample tests of the equality of survival distributions are compared by simulation for small samples from unequally, randomly-censored exponential distributions. The tests investigated include parametric tests (F, Score, Likelihood, Asymptotic), logrank tests (Mantel, Peto-Peto), and Wilcoxon-Type tests (Gehan, Prentice). Equal sized samples, n = 18, 16, 32 with 1000 (size) and 500 (power) simulation trials, are compared for 16 combinations of the censoring proportions 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60%. For n = 8 and 16, the Asymptotic, Peto-Peto, and Wilcoxon tests perform at nominal 5% size expectations, but the F, Score and Mantel tests exceeded 5% size confidence limits for 1/3 of the censoring combinations. For n = 32, all tests showed proper size, with the Peto-Peto test most conservative in the presence of unequal censoring. Powers of all tests are compared for exponential hazard ratios of 1.4 and 2.0. There is little difference in power characteristics of the tests within the classes of tests considered. The Mantel test showed 90% to 95% power efficiency relative to parametric tests. Wilcoxon-type tests have the lowest relative power but are robust to differential censoring patterns. A modified Peto-Peto test shows power comparable to the Mantel test. For n = 32, a specific Weibull-exponential comparison of crossing survival curves suggests that the relative powers of logrank and Wilcoxon-type tests are dependent on the scale parameter of the Weibull distribution. Wilcoxon-type tests appear more powerful than logrank tests in the case of late-crossing and less powerful for early-crossing survival curves. Guidelines for the appropriate selection of two-sample tests are given. ^

Effect of nonnormal random components on level and power in group-randomized trials

The use of group-randomized trials is particularly widespread in the evaluation of health care, educational, and screening strategies. Group-randomized trials represent a subset of a larger class of designs often labeled nested, hierarchical, or multilevel and are characterized by the randomization of intact social units or groups, rather than individuals. The application of random effects models to group-randomized trials requires the specification of fixed and random components of the model. The underlying assumption is usually that these random components are normally distributed. This research is intended to determine if the Type I error rate and power are affected when the assumption of normality for the random component representing the group effect is violated. ^ In this study, simulated data are used to examine the Type I error rate, power, bias and mean squared error of the estimates of the fixed effect and the observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) when the random component representing the group effect possess distributions with non-normal characteristics, such as heavy tails or severe skewness. The simulated data are generated with various characteristics (e.g. number of schools per condition, number of students per school, and several within school ICCs) observed in most small, school-based, group-randomized trials. The analysis is carried out using SAS PROC MIXED, Version 6.12, with random effects specified in a random statement and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation specified. The results from the non-normally distributed data are compared to the results obtained from the analysis of data with similar design characteristics but normally distributed random effects. ^ The results suggest that the violation of the normality assumption for the group component by a skewed or heavy-tailed distribution does not appear to influence the estimation of the fixed effect, Type I error, and power. Negative biases were detected when estimating the sample ICC and dramatically increased in magnitude as the true ICC increased. These biases were not as pronounced when the true ICC was within the range observed in most group-randomized trials (i.e. 0.00 to 0.05). The normally distributed group effect also resulted in bias ICC estimates when the true ICC was greater than 0.05. However, this may be a result of higher correlation within the data. ^

Effect of patient accrual patterns on power and size of log-rank test for time-to-event outcome in clinical trials

The determination of size as well as power of a test is a vital part of a Clinical Trial Design. This research focuses on the simulation of clinical trial data with time-to-event as the primary outcome. It investigates the impact of different recruitment patterns, and time dependent hazard structures on size and power of the log-rank test. A non-homogeneous Poisson process is used to simulate entry times according to the different accrual patterns. A Weibull distribution is employed to simulate survival times according to the different hazard structures. The current study utilizes simulation methods to evaluate the effect of different recruitment patterns on size and power estimates of the log-rank test. The size of the log-rank test is estimated by simulating survival times with identical hazard rates between the treatment and the control arm of the study resulting in a hazard ratio of one. Powers of the log-rank test at specific values of hazard ratio (≠1) are estimated by simulating survival times with different, but proportional hazard rates for the two arms of the study. Different shapes (constant, decreasing, or increasing) of the hazard function of the Weibull distribution are also considered to assess the effect of hazard structure on the size and power of the log-rank test. ^