The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: A tutorial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Data on survival endpoints are usually summarised using either hazard ratio, cumulative number of events, or median survival statistics. Network meta-analysis, an extension of traditional pairwise meta-analysis, is typically based on a single statistic. In this case, studies which do not report the chosen statistic are excluded from the analysis which may introduce bias. METHODS: In this paper we present a tutorial illustrating how network meta-analyses of survival endpoints can combine count and hazard ratio statistics in a single analysis on the hazard ratio scale. We also describe methods for accounting for the correlations in relative treatment effects (such as hazard ratios) that arise in trials with more than two arms. Combination of count and hazard ratio data in a single analysis is achieved by estimating the cumulative hazard for each trial arm reporting count data. Correlation in relative treatment effects in multi-arm trials is preserved by converting the relative treatment effect estimates (the hazard ratios) to arm-specific outcomes (hazards). RESULTS: A worked example of an analysis of mortality data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is used to illustrate the methods. The data set and WinBUGS code for fixed and random effects models are provided. CONCLUSIONS: By incorporating all data presentations in a single analysis, we avoid the potential selection bias associated with conducting an analysis for a single statistic and the potential difficulties of interpretation, misleading results and loss of available treatment comparisons associated with conducting separate analyses for different summary statistics.
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
Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.
Tierney, J. F., Stewart, L. A., Ghersi, D., Burdett, S., & Sydes, M. R. (2007) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-8-16 · Cited by 6,208
WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility
Lunn, D. J., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1023/a:1008929526011 · Cited by 5,368
Parmar, M. K. B., Torri, V., & Stewart, L. (1998) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8 · Cited by 4,802
Salmeterol and Fluticasone Propionate and Survival in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Calverley, P. M. A., Anderson, J. A., Celli, B., Ferguson, G. T., Jenkins, C., Jones, P. W., Yates, J. C., & Vestbo, J. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa063070 · Cited by 3,248
Modelling for Survival Data in Medical Research
(1995) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1995.10485920 · Cited by 2,145
Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 · Cited by 1,845
Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text
Carpenter, M. (1997) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1997.10485091 · Cited by 1,811
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600 · cited 4×
“the difference in effect between treatments A & B (dAB) is equal to the difference in effects between treatments A & C and B & C (dAB = dAC - dBC) [1-3].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCalverley, P., Pauwels, R., Vestbo, J., Jones, P., Pride, N., Gulsvik, A., Anderson, J., & Maden, C. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)12459-2 · Cited by 1,221
Cited by
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
Salanti, G. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1037 · Cited by 1,729
Morgan, R. L., Baack, B., Smith, B. D., Yartel, A., Pitasi, M., & Falck-Ytter, Y. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303050-00005 · Cited by 829
Hoaglin, D. C., Hawkins, N., Jansen, J. P., Scott, D. A., Itzler, R., Cappelleri, J. C., Boersma, C., Thompson, D., Larholt, K. M., Diaz, M., et al. (2011) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011 · Cited by 770
Self-citationGetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology
Efthimiou, O., Debray, T. P. A., van Valkenhoef, G., Trelle, S., Panayidou, K., Moons, K. G. M., Reitsma, J. B., Shang, A., Salanti, G., & on behalf of GetReal Methods Review Group (2016) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1195 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Woods, B. S., Hawkins, N., & Scott, D. A.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2010-06-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-54
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2118002846
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 6.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: A tutorial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-10-54
- The paper
- Woods, B. S., Hawkins, N., & Scott, D. A. (2010). Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: A tutorial. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-54
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.
