Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41626988›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2025

Simple imputation method for meta-analysis of survival rates when precision information is missing.

Kazushi Maruo, Yusuke Yamaguchi, Ryota Ishii, Hisashi Noma, Masahiko Gosho

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Kazushi MaruoDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, https://ror.org/02956yf07University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Yusuke YamaguchiBiostatistics, Data Science, Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc., Northbrook, IL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8589-5303
Ryota IshiiDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, https://ror.org/02956yf07University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Hisashi NomaDepartment of Data Science, https://ror.org/03jcejr58The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan.
Masahiko GoshoDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Medicine, https://ror.org/02956yf07University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science JP24K02662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In meta-analyses of survival rates, precision information (i.e., standard errors (SEs) or confidence intervals) are often missing in clinical studies. In current practice, such studies are often excluded from the synthesis analyses. However, the naïve deletion of these incomplete data can produce serious biases and loss of precision in pooled estimators. To address these issues, we developed a simple but effective method to impute precision information using commonly available statistics from individual studies, such as sample size, number of events, and risk set size at a time point of interest. By applying this new method, we can effectively circumvent the deletion of incomplete data, resultant biases, and losses of precision. Based on extensive simulation studies, the developed method markedly improves the accuracy and precision of the pooled estimators compared to those of naïve analyses that delete studies with missing precision. Furthermore, the performance of the proposed method was not significantly inferior to the ideal case, where there was no missing precision information. However, for studies for which the risk set size at the time of interest was not available, the proposed method runs the risk of overestimating the SE. Although the proposed method is a single-imputation method, the simulations show that there is no underestimation bias of the SE, even though the proposed method does not consider the uncertainty of missing values. To demonstrate the robustness of our proposed methods, they were applied in a systematic review of radiotherapy data. An R package was developed to implement the proposed procedure.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicSurvival RateAlgorithmsBiasComputer SimulationConfidence IntervalsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, StatisticalReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSample SizeSurvival AnalysisUncertaintyconfidence intervalimputationKaplan–Meier methodR package

Identifiers

PMID41626988
PMCPMC12657670

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.