ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Bias due to statistical handling of death and reirradiation in the assessment of duration of response after palliative radiotherapy: a scoping review and analysis of clinical data.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe investigated the influence of handling death and reirradiation on the estimation of duration of response (DOR).
methodsFirst, we performed a scoping review on methods to assess DOR in palliative radiotherapy. Second, we performed three different analyses on a subgroup of patients from a previously published prospective study. The first analysis was a competing risks analysis considering relapse of pain as the event of interest and death and reirradiation as competing events (Analysis A). The second and third analyses were standard survival analyses where the event of interest was a composite outcome of relapse of pain, death, or reirradiation (Analysis B) and relapse of pain (Analysis C), respectively.
resultsDeath was considered as an event of interest in less than half of the papers, while reirradiation was not considered in any of the studies. Competing risks analysis was not performed in any of the studies. In the analysis of clinical data, competing risks analysis showed that relapse of pain predominated as the cause of the end of response. Median DOR was correctly estimated to be 4.1 months in Analyses A and B, but was overestimated to be 8.1 months in Analysis C.
conclusionsDeath and reirradiation should be treated as the events of interest that mark the end of response (as in Analyses A and B) to avoid overestimation of treatment efficacy and an invalid assumption of independent censoring. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The definition of end of response remains inconclusive in the assessment of DOR. We recommend competing risks analysis (Analysis A), by which we can estimate cumulative incidence of each event type and evaluate the necessity of reirradiation.
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.