2003
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601120
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Survival Analysis Part III: Multivariate data analysis – choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
240
0
1

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 326 publications
(251 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
2
240
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The alternative to the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is to allow the hazard ratio to vary over time. This can be checked by various methods, as described by [6,19,20].…”
Section: Goodness Of Fitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The alternative to the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is to allow the hazard ratio to vary over time. This can be checked by various methods, as described by [6,19,20].…”
Section: Goodness Of Fitmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proportional hazards assumption was assessed using trend tests of the Schoenfeld residuals with those that failed the assumption entered as continuous time dependent covariates. (Bradburn, Clark, Love, & Altman, 2003) Hazard ratios for variables treated as time dependent covariates vary over time and are reported at the median survival time. LMAX and DFBETA measures were used to test for influential observations and covariates, respectively.…”
Section: Analysis Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coefficient b 1 represents the additional relative hazard for each unit increase in x 1 at any given time. This model is different from models with time-dependent coefficients (Bradburn et al, 2003b), in which the effect of a covariate changes rather than the value of the covariate itself, that is,…”
Section: In Our Clinical Trial We Collected Measurements At Prearranmentioning
confidence: 99%