Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34837957›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Comparing current and emerging practice models for the extrapolation of survival data: a simulation study and case-study.

Benjamin Kearns, Matt D Stevenson, Kostas Triantafyllopoulos, Andrea Manca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. SurvInt: a simple tool to obtain precise parametric survival extrapolations.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Blended Survival Curves: A New Approach to Extrapolation for Time-to-Event Outcomes from Clinical Trials in Health Technology Assessment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  10. Dynamic and Flexible Survival Models for Extrapolation of Relative Survival: A Case Study and Simulation Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Benjamin KearnsSchool of Health and Related Research. Regent Court (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. B.Kearns@sheffield.ac.uk.
Matt D StevensonSchool of Health and Related Research. Regent Court (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Kostas TriantafyllopoulosSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Andrea MancaCentre for Health Economics, The University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimates of future survival can be a key evidence source when deciding if a medical treatment should be funded. Current practice is to use standard parametric models for generating extrapolations. Several emerging, more flexible, survival models are available which can provide improved within-sample fit. This study aimed to assess if these emerging practice models also provided improved extrapolations.

methodsBoth a simulation study and a case-study were used to assess the goodness of fit of five classes of survival model. These were: current practice models, Royston Parmar models (RPMs), Fractional polynomials (FPs), Generalised additive models (GAMs), and Dynamic survival models (DSMs). The simulation study used a mixture-Weibull model as the data-generating mechanism with varying lengths of follow-up and sample sizes. The case-study was long-term follow-up of a prostate cancer trial. For both studies, models were fit to an early data-cut of the data, and extrapolations compared to the known long-term follow-up.

resultsThe emerging practice models provided better within-sample fit than current practice models. For data-rich simulation scenarios (large sample sizes or long follow-up), the GAMs and DSMs provided improved extrapolations compared with current practice. Extrapolations from FPs were always very poor whilst those from RPMs were similar to current practice. With short follow-up all the models struggled to provide useful extrapolations. In the case-study all the models provided very similar estimates, but extrapolations were all poor as no model was able to capture a turning-point during the extrapolated period.

conclusionsGood within-sample fit does not guarantee good extrapolation performance. Both GAMs and DSMs may be considered as candidate extrapolation models in addition to current practice. Further research into when these flexible models are most useful, and the role of external evidence to improve extrapolations is required.

Indexed as

Survival AnalysisComputer SimulationHumansSample SizeExtrapolationForecastingSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID34837957
PMCPMC8627632

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.