ArticlePloS one2026
Extracting standard error from the 95% confidence interval of a survival.
Article in PloS one, 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
Extracting the standard error of survival from published 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) may be needed for meta-analyses. For the extraction, the transformation used to compute the 95%CI must be known. When that transformation is not stated in publications, an assumption must be made about it. However, an assessment of the impact of an incorrect assumption and a procedure to identify the correct transformation are lacking. To address this, we propose an approach aiming at identifying the transformation used to compute the 95%CI of the survival and enhancing the extraction of the standard error. This approach, named "Logarithm of the Relative Asymmetry" (LRA), is based on the asymmetry of the reported 95%CI. In this study, we assess the extraction error, which is the difference between extracted and true standard errors, and the performance of the LRA approach. The impact of the extraction error and the LRA approach on meta-analyses is also assessed. This study shows that an incorrect assumption about the transformation used to compute the 95%CI of the survival causes, in most cases, an overestimation of the standard error. This overestimation worsens as the survival approaches 0 or 1 or as the sample size decreases, and it propagates into the meta-analysis results. The LRA approach correctly identifies the transformation, yet its performance may be negatively impacted by the number of decimal places used to report the survival and its 95%CI or when the lower or upper bound of the reported 95%CI is exactly 0 or 1 respectively. Overall, the LRA approach is suitable for avoiding important extraction errors and mitigates their impact on meta-analyses results. Thus, we recommend this approach to identify the transformation used to compute the 95%CI of the survival.
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.