The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on time-to-event outcomes that are usually reported are median time to events and Cox Hazard Ratio. These do not constitute the sufficient statistics required for meta-analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, and their use in secondary analyses requires strong assumptions that may not have been adequately tested. In order to enhance the quality of secondary data analyses, we propose a method which derives from the published Kaplan Meier survival curves a close approximation to the original individual patient time-to-event data from which they were generated. METHODS: We develop an algorithm that maps from digitised curves back to KM data by finding numerical solutions to the inverted KM equations, using where available information on number of events and numbers at risk. The reproducibility and accuracy of survival probabilities, median survival times and hazard ratios based on reconstructed KM data was assessed by comparing published statistics (survival probabilities, medians and hazard ratios) with statistics based on repeated reconstructions by multiple observers. RESULTS: The validation exercise established there was no material systematic error and that there was a high degree of reproducibility for all statistics. Accuracy was excellent for survival probabilities and medians, for hazard ratios reasonable accuracy can only be obtained if at least numbers at risk or total number of events are reported. CONCLUSION: The algorithm is a reliable tool for meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses of RCTs reporting time-to-event data. It is recommended that all RCTs should report information on numbers at risk and total number of events alongside KM curves.
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
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., Elbourne, D., Egger, M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c869 · Cited by 8,883 · cited 1×
“CONSORT guidelines recommend that for each primary and secondary outcome “study results should be reported as a summary of the outcome in each group, together with the contrast between the groups, known as the effect size” [1].”
BackgroundMichiels, S., Piedbois, P., Burdett, S., Syz, N., Stewart, L., & Pignon, J.-P. (2005) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462305050154 · Cited by 154
Cited by
Spring, L. M., Fell, G., Arfe, A., Sharma, C., Greenup, R., Reynolds, K. L., Smith, B. L., Alexander, B., Moy, B., Isakoff, S. J., et al. (2020) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3492 · Cited by 938
Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect
Higgins, J. P., Li, T., & Deeks, J. J. (2019) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch6 · Cited by 977
Chu, D. K., Kim, L. H.-Y., Young, P. J., Zamiri, N., Almenawer, S. A., Jaeschke, R., Szczeklik, W., Schünemann, H. J., Neary, J. D., & Alhazzani, W. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30479-3 · Cited by 778
Latimer, N. R. (2013) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x12472398 · Cited by 537
Syn, N. L., Cummings, D. E., Wang, L. Z., Lin, D. J., Zhao, J. J., Loh, M., Koh, Z. J., Chew, C. A., Loo, Y. E., Tai, B. C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00591-2 · Cited by 521
Metadata
- Authors
- Guyot, P., Ades, A., Ouwens, M. J., & Welton, N. J.
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2012-02-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-9
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982967337
- Cited by
- 2,526
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.05
- 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: Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2288-12-9
- The paper
- Guyot, P., Ades, A., Ouwens, M. J., & Welton, N. J. (2012). Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-9
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.