Back

Covariate adjustment for hierarchical outcomes and the win ratio: how to do it and is it worthwhile?

Hazewinkel, A.-D.; Gregson, J.; Bartlett, J. W.; Gasparyan, S. B.; Wright, D.; Pocock, S.

2026-03-31 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.03.30.26347966 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: Introducing a new covariate adjustment method for hierarchical outcomes using ordinal logistic regression, comparing it with existing approaches, and assessing whether adjustment improves power in randomized trials with hierarchical outcomes. Methods: We developed an ordinal regression-based method for covariate adjustment of the win ratio and compared it with three alternatives: probability index models, inverse probability weighting, and a randomization-based estimator. Methods were applied to the EMPEROR-Preserved rial and tested through extensive simulations involving two common hierarchical outcome structures: time-to-event composites, and composites combining time-to-event with quantitative measures. Simulations assessed impacts on estimates, standard errors, and power across prognostic and non-prognostic settings. Results: In RCT data and simulations, covariate adjustment consistently increased power when adjusting for prognostic baseline variables. Gains were comparable to or greater than those in conventional Cox models, with no power loss for non-prognostic covariates. Our ordinal approach performed similarly to existing methods while providing interpretable covariate effect estimates. Adjusting for baseline values of quantitative components yielded power gains according to the baseline-to-follow-up correlation. Conclusions: Covariate adjustment for prognostic variables meaningfully improves efficiency in win ratio analyses for hierarchical outcomes. Our ordinal method is easily implemented and facilitates covariate effect interpretation. We recommend the broader adoption of covariate adjustment and our ordinal method in randomized trials using hierarchical outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Epidemiology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
41.2%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.1%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.8%
6
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
7
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
8
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
9
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
10
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
12
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
14
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
15
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
16
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
19
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
20
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.7%
21
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Biometrics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
25
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
27
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%