Win statistics (win ratio,win odds,and net benefit) can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes

Conventional analyses of a composite of multiple time-to-event outcomes use the time to the first event. However, the first event may not be the most important outcome. To address this limitation, generalized pairwise comparisons and win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) have become popular and have been applied to clinical trial practice. However, win ratio, win odds, and net benefit have typically been used separately. In this article, we examine the use of these three win statistics jointly for time-to-event outcomes. First, we explain the relation of point estimates and variances among the three win statistics, and the relation between the net benefit and the Mann–Whitney U statistic. Then we explain that the three win statistics are based on the same win proportions, and they test the same null hypothesis of equal win probabilities in two groups. We show theoretically that the Z-values of the corresponding statistical tests are approximately equal; therefore, the three win statistics provide very similar p-values and statistical powers. Finally, using simulation studies and data from a clinical trial, we demonstrate that, when there is no (or little) censoring, the three win statistics can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect. However, when the amount of censoring is not small, and without adjustment for censoring, the win odds and the net benefit may have an advantage for interpreting the treatment effect; with adjustment (e.g., IPCW adjustment) for censoring, the three win statistics can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect. For calculations we use the R package WINS, available on the CRAN (Comprehensive R Archive Network).     

Preparing Black and Latinx children for police encounters: Caregiver response profiles and child self-regulation

We hypothesized that the goodness-of-fit between profiles of observed, caregiver-provided ethnic–racial socialization (ERS), and child self-regulation (i.e., inhibitory control) would differentially associate with child behavioral outcomes. Conversations between 80 caregivers (45% Latinx; 55% Black) and their children (M _age  = 11.09; 46% female) were rated for ERS. Measures included an inhibitory control composite (ages 2.5–3.5) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; age 12). Three profiles were determined: Comprehensive (n  = 34), Reactive (n  = 8), and Pragmatic (n  = 38). Only youth with low inhibitory control in preschool appeared to benefit from Pragmatic ERS, whereas youth with normative or high inhibitory control in early childhood displayed lower internalizing and externalizing behaviors when they had Comprehensive or Reactive rather than Pragmatic caregivers.