Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30373524›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2018

Mediation analysis with a time-to-event outcome: a review of use and reporting in healthcare research.

Lauren Lapointe-Shaw, Zachary Bouck, Nicholas A Howell, Theis Lange, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Peter C Austin, Noah M Ivers, Donald A Redelmeier, Chaim M Bell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review of the Reporting Quality of Observational Studies That Use Mediation Analyses.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. The neurobiological cravings signature (NCS) as a predictive neuromarker of clinical outcomes in alcohol use disorder.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Lauren Lapointe-ShawDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. lauren.lapointe.shaw@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-4485-6719
Zachary BouckInstitute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Nicholas A HowellInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Theis LangeSection of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ani Orchanian-CheffLibrary and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Peter C AustinInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Noah M IversInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Donald A RedelmeierDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Chaim M BellDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

CIHR FRN 146714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMediation analysis tests whether the relationship between two variables is explained by a third intermediate variable. We sought to describe the usage and reporting of mediation analysis with time-to-event outcomes in published healthcare research.

methodsA systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science was executed in December 2016 to identify applications of mediation analysis to healthcare research involving a clinically relevant time-to-event outcome. We summarized usage over time and reporting of important methodological characteristics.

resultsWe included 149 primary studies, published from 1997 to 2016. Most studies were published after 2011 (n = 110, 74%), and the annual number of studies nearly doubled in the last year (from n = 21 to n = 40). A traditional approach (causal steps or change in coefficient) was most commonly taken (n = 87, 58%), and the majority of studies (n = 114, 77%) used a Cox Proportional Hazards regression for the outcome. Few studies (n = 52, 35%) mentioned any of the assumptions or limitations fundamental to a causal interpretation of mediation analysis.

conclusionThere is increasing use of mediation analysis with time-to-event outcomes. Current usage is limited by reliance on traditional methods and the Cox Proportional Hazards model, as well as low rates of reporting of underlying assumptions. There is a need for formal criteria to aid authors, reviewers, and readers reporting or appraising such studies.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareProportional Hazards ModelsSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsCounterfactualsIndirect effectMediationMediation analysis, Survival, Time-to-event, MethodologyReporting

Identifiers

PMID30373524
PMCPMC6206666

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.