ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Modelling longitudinal and time-to-event data: a phase IV simulation study comparing R package implementations of joint models with time-varying Cox proportional-hazards regression, and the two-stage approach.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Joint models offer an unbiased statistical approach for analyzing the effects of longitudinal biomarkers on time-to-event outcomes, providing an alternative to time-varying Cox proportional-hazards regression and the two-stage approach. However, whether available implementations of these methods perform reliably across different practically relevant scenarios remains insufficiently studied. We conducted a simulation study based on the Berlin Initiative Study examining kidney function and survival in older adults. In a manner comparable to phase IV studies in clinical research, our evaluation aims to provide insights into the practical performance of commonly used R package implementations of these methods, mostly under their default settings. By varying data generating scenarios, we assessed how different numbers of events and longitudinal measurements affect performance of Bayesian (JMbayes2) and frequentist joint model implementations (JM and joineRML), time-varying Cox PH regression (survival), and the two-stage approach (nlme and survival), focusing on bias in parameter estimates. Results revealed substantial variability across implementations. The JM package exhibited considerable bias and frequent convergence issues. In contrast, joineRML performed robustly with approximately unbiased estimates for association parameters and high convergence frequencies comparable to the implementations of the simpler methods across diverse scenarios. However, both frequentist packages systematically underestimated the effects of baseline covariates in the survival model. The Bayesian JMbayes2 was largely unbiased, but performance deteriorated under two conditions: with few events (< 70), convergence was low and bias persisted even in converged models; and with observation-to-event ratios below 2, convergence declined, although estimates from converged models remained approximately unbiased. Time-varying Cox PH regression and the two-stage approach showed more bias than JMbayes2 in certain settings but tended to achieve more robust performance and convergence across most scenarios.
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.