The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Investigating heterogeneity in an individual patient data meta-analysis of time to event outcomes
Abstract
Differences across studies in terms of design features and methodology, clinical procedures, and patient characteristics, are factors that can contribute to variability in the treatment effect between studies in a meta-analysis (statistical heterogeneity). Regression modelling can be used to examine relationships between treatment effect and covariates with the aim of explaining the variability in terms of clinical, methodological, or other factors. Such an investigation can be undertaken using aggregate data or individual patient data. An aggregate data approach can be problematic as sufficient data are rarely available and translating aggregate effects to individual patients can often be misleading. An individual patient data approach, although usually more resource demanding, allows a more thorough investigation of potential sources of heterogeneity and enables a fuller analysis of time to event outcomes in meta-analysis. Hierarchical Cox regression models are used to identify and explore the evidence for heterogeneity in meta-analysis and examine the relationship between covariates and censored failure time data in this context. Alternative formulations of the model are possible and illustrated using individual patient data from a meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials which compare two drugs for the treatment of epilepsy. The models are further applied to simulated data examples in which the degree of heterogeneity and magnitude of treatment effect are varied. The behaviour of each model in each situation is explored and compared.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model
Therneau, T. M., & Grambsch, P. M. (2000) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3294-8 · Cited by 8,674
Cited by
Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., & Abo-Zaid, G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c221 · Cited by 1,701
Kuyken, W., Warren, F. C., Taylor, R. S., Whalley, B., Crane, C., Bondolfi, G., Hayes, R., Huijbers, M., Ma, H., Schweizer, S., et al. (2016) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.0076 · Cited by 821
Indirect comparisons of competing interventions
Glenny, A., Altman, D., Song, F., Sakarovitch, C., Deeks, J., D'Amico, R., Bradburn, M., & Eastwood, A. (2005) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta9260 · Cited by 677
Mahr, A. D., Jover, J. A., Spiera, R. F., Hernández‐García, C., Fernández‐Gutiérrez, B., LaValley, M. P., & Merkel, P. A. (2007) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.22754 · Cited by 622
Kotecha, D., Holmes, J., Krum, H., Altman, D. G., Manzano, L., Cleland, J. G. F., Lip, G. Y. H., Coats, A. J. S., Andersson, B., Kirchhof, P., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61373-8 · Cited by 579
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, C. T., Williamson, P. R., & Marson, A. G.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1307-1319
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W2152575253
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.