ReviewJournal of clinical epidemiology2020
Uptake of methodological advances for synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes would maximize use of the evidence base.
Review in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A One-Stage Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- NMAsurv: An R Shiny application for network meta-analysis based on survival data.Research synthesis methods · 2025Review
- Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness evaluation of systemic treatments for refractory colorectal cancer: a systematic review and modeling study.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Review
- Challenges of modelling approaches for network meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes in the presence of non-proportional hazards to aid decision making: Application to a melanoma network.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the study is to establish how often continuous and time-to-event outcomes are synthesized in health technology assessment (HTA), the statistical methods and software used in their analysis and how often evidence synthesis informs decision models. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingThis is a review of National Institute of Health Research HTA reports, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals, and NICE guidelines reporting quantitative meta-analysis or network meta-analysis of at least one continuous or time-to-event outcome published from April 01, 2018 to March 31, 2019.
resultsWe identified 47 eligible articles. At least one continuous or time-to-event outcome was synthesized in 51% and 55% of articles, respectively. Evidence synthesis results informed decision models in two-thirds of articles. The review and expert knowledge identified five areas where methodology is available for improving the synthesis of continuous and time-to-event outcomes: i) outcomes reported on multiple scales, ii) reporting of multiple related outcomes, iii) appropriateness of the additive scale, iv) reporting of multiple time points, and v) nonproportional hazards. We identified three anticipated barriers to the uptake and implementation of these methods: i) statistical expertise, ii) software, and iii) reporting of trials.
conclusionContinuous and time-to-event outcomes are routinely reported in HTA. However, increased uptake of methodological advances could maximize the evidence base used to inform the decision making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.