Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25176982›Full record

ReviewHaematologica2014

Survival analysis in hematologic malignancies: recommendations for clinicians.

Julio Delgado, Arturo Pereira, Neus Villamor, Armando López-Guillermo, Ciril Rozman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Haematologica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Dual-tracer PET/CT with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julio DelgadoDepartment of Hematology, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona jdelgado@clinic.ub.es.
Arturo PereiraHematopathology Unit, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona.
Neus VillamorDeparment of Hemostasis and Hemotherapy, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona.
Armando López-GuillermoDepartment of Hematology, Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona.
Ciril RozmanJosep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread availability of statistical packages has undoubtedly helped hematologists worldwide in the analysis of their data, but has also led to the inappropriate use of statistical methods. In this article, we review some basic concepts of survival analysis and also make recommendations about how and when to perform each particular test using SPSS, Stata and R. In particular, we describe a simple way of defining cut-off points for continuous variables and the appropriate and inappropriate uses of the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard regression models. We also provide practical advice on how to check the proportional hazards assumption and briefly review the role of relative survival and multiple imputation.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicSoftwareAgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLeukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-CellMaleProportional Hazards ModelsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID25176982
PMCPMC4562529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.