Cited by 6,208Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.

Open access
Tierney, Jayne F, Stewart, Lesley A, Ghersi, Davina, Burdett, Sarah, Sydes, Matthew R·2007·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, time-to-event outcomes are most appropriately analysed using hazard ratios (HRs). In the absence of individual patient data (IPD), methods are available to obtain HRs and/or associated statistics by carefully manipulating published or other summary data. Awareness and adoption of these methods is somewhat limited, perhaps because they are published in the statistical literature using statistical notation. METHODS: This paper aims to 'translate' the methods for estimating a HR and associated statistics from published time-to-event-analyses into less statistical and more practical guidance and provide a corresponding, easy-to-use calculations spreadsheet, to facilitate the computational aspects. RESULTS: A wider audience should be able to understand published time-to-event data in individual trial reports and use it more appropriately in meta-analysis. When faced with particular circumstances, readers can refer to the relevant sections of the paper. The spreadsheet can be used to assist them in carrying out the calculations. CONCLUSION: The methods cannot circumvent the potential biases associated with relying on published data for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. However, this practical guide should improve the quality of the analysis and subsequent interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include time-to-event outcomes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dickersin K Min Y-I Meinert CL Factors influencing publication of research results Journal of the American Medical Association 1992 267 374 8 1727960 10.1001/jama.267.3.374 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tierney, J. F., Stewart, L. A., Ghersi, D., Burdett, S., & Sydes, M. R.
Affiliations
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (AU)
Corresponding author
Tierney, Jayne F
Venue
Trials
Published
2007-06-07
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088095316
Cited by
6,208
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 243 · 2025: 311 · 2024: 403 · 2023: 482 · 2022: 563 · 2021: 665 · 2020: 584 · 2019: 491 · 2018: 467 · 2017: 485 · 2016: 397 · 2015: 344 · 2014: 246 · 2013: 206 · 2012: 108
FWCI
36.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
time-to-event data, hazard ratio, meta-analysis, summary data, individual patient data, survival analysis, spreadsheet calculations, trial reports

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