Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42135742›Full record

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.

Jil Heege, Sonja Greven, Elke Schaeffner, Ulrike Grittner, Annette Aigner

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jil HeegeInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany. jil.heege@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3183-4932
Sonja GrevenSchool of Business and Economics, Chair of Statistics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, Berlin, 10099, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0495-850X
Elke SchaeffnerInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7925-4577
Ulrike Grittner *Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2595-0224
Annette Aigner *Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4891-8921

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalProportional Hazards ModelsSoftwareAgedBayes TheoremComputer SimulationFollow-Up StudiesGlomerular Filtration RateHumansLongitudinal StudiesSurvival AnalysisJoint modelsLongitudinal dataSimulation studyTime-to-event analysisTime-varying covariatesTwo-stage approach

Identifiers

PMID42135742
PMCPMC13177884

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.