ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Exploring the characteristics, methods and reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes: a meta-epidemiological study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTime-to-event analysis is associated with methodological complexities. Previous research identified flaws in the reporting of time-to-event analyses in randomized trial publications. These hardships impose challenges for meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes based on aggregate data. We examined the characteristics, reporting and methods of systematic reviews including such analyses.
methodsThrough a systematic search (02/2017-08/2020), we identified 50 Cochrane Reviews with ≥ 1 meta-analysis based on the hazard ratio (HR) and a corresponding random sample (n = 50) from core clinical journals (Medline; 08/02/2021). Data was extracted in duplicate and included outcome definitions, general and time-to-event specific methods and handling of time-to-event relevant trial characteristics.
resultsThe included reviews analyzed 217 time-to-event outcomes (Median: 2; IQR 1-2), most frequently overall survival (41%). Outcome definitions were provided for less than half of time-to-event outcomes (48%). Few reviews specified general methods, e.g., included analysis types (intention-to-treat, per protocol) (35%) and adjustment of effect estimates (12%). Sources that review authors used for retrieval of time-to-event summary data from publications varied substantially. Most frequently reported were direct inclusion of HRs (64%) and reference to established guidance without further specification (46%). Study characteristics important to time-to-event analysis, such as variable follow-up, informative censoring or proportional hazards, were rarely reported. If presented, complementary absolute effect estimates calculated based on the pooled HR were incorrectly calculated (14%) or correct but falsely labeled (11%) in several reviews.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that limitations in reporting of trial time-to-event analyses translate to the review level as well. Inconsistent reporting of meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes necessitates additional reporting standards.
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.