Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25803659›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

A review and comparison of methods for recreating individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves for economic evaluations: a simulation study.

Xiaomin Wan, Liubao Peng, Yuanjian Li

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. First-line versus second-line use of selpercatinib in treatment of RET fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  10. Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Entrectinib as first-lineTranslational lung cancer research · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Xiaomin WanDepartment of Pharmacy, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China.
Liubao PengDepartment of Pharmacy, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410011, China.
Yuanjian LiCollege of Pharmacy, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn general, the individual patient-level data (IPD) collected in clinical trials are not available to independent researchers to conduct economic evaluations; researchers only have access to published survival curves and summary statistics. Thus, methods that use published survival curves and summary statistics to reproduce statistics for economic evaluations are essential. Four methods have been identified: two traditional methods 1) least squares method, 2) graphical method; and two recently proposed methods by 3) Hoyle and Henley, 4) Guyot et al. The four methods were first individually reviewed and subsequently assessed regarding their abilities to estimate mean survival through a simulation study.

methodsA number of different scenarios were developed that comprised combinations of various sample sizes, censoring rates and parametric survival distributions. One thousand simulated survival datasets were generated for each scenario, and all methods were applied to actual IPD. The uncertainty in the estimate of mean survival time was also captured.

resultsAll methods provided accurate estimates of the mean survival time when the sample size was 500 and a Weibull distribution was used. When the sample size was 100 and the Weibull distribution was used, the Guyot et al. method was almost as accurate as the Hoyle and Henley method; however, more biases were identified in the traditional methods. When a lognormal distribution was used, the Guyot et al. method generated noticeably less bias and a more accurate uncertainty compared with the Hoyle and Henley method.

conclusionsThe traditional methods should not be preferred because of their remarkable overestimation. When the Weibull distribution was used for a fitted model, the Guyot et al. method was almost as accurate as the Hoyle and Henley method. However, if the lognormal distribution was used, the Guyot et al. method was less biased compared with the Hoyle and Henley method.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisKaplan-Meier EstimateModels, StatisticalBiasInformation Storage and RetrievalSample SizeSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID25803659
PMCPMC4372344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.