ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Standardized survival probabilities and contrasts between hierarchical units in multilevel survival models.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the medical literature, in which time-to-event (such as time to death or disease recurrence) outcomes are commonly studied, hierarchical data is frequently encountered with patients nested within hospitals or regions. Multilevel hierarchical mixed-effects survival models are routinely used in these settings to accommodate the correlation between study subjects belonging to the same cluster and any potential unobserved heterogeneity. However, these analyses usually focus on fixed effects while marginalizing over the random effects, with fully conditional or marginal (on the random effects) post-estimation predictions.
methodsIn this work, we combine regression standardization over the observed covariates with posterior predictions of the random effects to obtain standardized survival probabilities. These predictions quantify how the entire study population would have fared under the performance of each cluster and can be used to obtain fair comparisons between hierarchical units. Compared to other common approaches, such as the median hazard ratio, this proposal yields quantities that are easier to interpret and that, under certain assumptions, can have a causal interpretation.
resultsWe illustrate the new methodology in practice using data on bladder cancer patients with a three-level hierarchical structure composed of patients nested within surgeons and centers. Then, we illustrate a variety of standardized survival predictions benchmarking, e.g., best/average/worst surgeons and centers, surgeons within a center, or centers directly — all from a single and unified modeling framework.
conclusionsWe introduced an analytical approach that can be used to quantify and fairly compare the differences between hierarchical units using easily interpretable measures such as (standardized) survival probabilities and contrasts thereof.
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.