Exploring the Characteristics, Methods and Reporting of Systematic Reviews with Meta-analyses of Time-to-event Outcomes: a Meta-epidemiological Study

Overview

Journal BMC Med Res Methodol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Health Services

Date 2024 Nov 26

PMID 39587509

Authors

Marius Goldkuhle

Caroline Hirsch

Claire Iannizzi

Ana-Mihaela Zorger

Ralf Bender

Elvira C van Dalen

Lars G Hemkens

Ina Monsef

Nina Kreuzberger

Nicole Skoetz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Time-to-event analysis is associated with methodological complexities. Previous research identified flaws in the reporting of time-to-event analyses in randomized trial publications. These hardships impose challenges for meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes based on aggregate data. We examined the characteristics, reporting and methods of systematic reviews including such analyses.

Methods: Through a systematic search (02/2017-08/2020), we identified 50 Cochrane Reviews with ≥ 1 meta-analysis based on the hazard ratio (HR) and a corresponding random sample (n = 50) from core clinical journals (Medline; 08/02/2021). Data was extracted in duplicate and included outcome definitions, general and time-to-event specific methods and handling of time-to-event relevant trial characteristics.

Results: The included reviews analyzed 217 time-to-event outcomes (Median: 2; IQR 1-2), most frequently overall survival (41%). Outcome definitions were provided for less than half of time-to-event outcomes (48%). Few reviews specified general methods, e.g., included analysis types (intention-to-treat, per protocol) (35%) and adjustment of effect estimates (12%). Sources that review authors used for retrieval of time-to-event summary data from publications varied substantially. Most frequently reported were direct inclusion of HRs (64%) and reference to established guidance without further specification (46%). Study characteristics important to time-to-event analysis, such as variable follow-up, informative censoring or proportional hazards, were rarely reported. If presented, complementary absolute effect estimates calculated based on the pooled HR were incorrectly calculated (14%) or correct but falsely labeled (11%) in several reviews.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that limitations in reporting of trial time-to-event analyses translate to the review level as well. Inconsistent reporting of meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes necessitates additional reporting standards.

References

DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

Goldkuhle M, Bender R, Akl E, van Dalen E, Nevitt S, Mustafa R . GRADE Guidelines: 29. Rating the certainty in time-to-event outcomes-Study limitations due to censoring of participants with missing data in intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 129:126-137. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.017. View

Salika T, Turner R, Fisher D, Tierney J, White I . Implications of analysing time-to-event outcomes as binary in meta-analysis: empirical evidence from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):73. PMC: 8934481. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01541-9. View

Leung K, Elashoff R, Afifi A . Censoring issues in survival analysis. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997; 18:83-104. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.83. View

Schumacher M, Ohneberg K, Beyersmann J . Competing risk bias was common in a prominent medical journal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 80:135-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.013. View

Tierney J, Stewart L, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes M . Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007; 8:16. PMC: 1920534. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16. View

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):89. PMC: 8008539. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4. View

Zhu X, Zhou X, Zhang Y, Sun X, Liu H, Zhang Y . Reporting and methodological quality of survival analysis in articles published in Chinese oncology journals. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 96(50):e9204. PMC: 5815752. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009204. View

Altman D, De Stavola B, Love S, Stepniewska K . Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. Br J Cancer. 1995; 72(2):511-8. PMC: 2033978. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1995.364. View

10.

Ishak K, Proskorovsky I, Korytowsky B, Sandin R, Faivre S, Valle J . Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32(6):533-46. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0145-y. View

11.

Abraira V, Muriel A, Emparanza J, Pijoan J, Royuela A, Plana M . Reporting quality of survival analyses in medical journals still needs improvement. A minimal requirements proposal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(12):1340-6.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.009. View

12.

Murad M, Wang Z . Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017; 22(4):139-142. PMC: 5537553. DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110713. View

13.

Goldkuhle M, Hirsch C, Iannizzi C, Bora A, Bender R, van Dalen E . Meta-epidemiological review identified variable reporting and handling of time-to-event analyses in publications of trials included in meta-analyses of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 159:174-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.023. View

14.

Akl E, Kahale L, Agarwal A, Al-Matari N, Ebrahim S, Alexander P . Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a protocol for a methodological study. Syst Rev. 2014; 3:137. PMC: 4285551. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-137. View

15.

Skoetz N, Goldkuhle M, van Dalen E, Akl E, Trivella M, Mustafa R . GRADE guidelines 27: how to calculate absolute effects for time-to-event outcomes in summary of findings tables and Evidence Profiles. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 118:124-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.015. View

16.

Stensrud M, Hernan M . Why Test for Proportional Hazards?. JAMA. 2020; 323(14):1401-1402. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.1267. View

17.

Wei Y, Royston P, Tierney J, Parmar M . Meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes from randomized trials using restricted mean survival time: application to individual participant data. Stat Med. 2015; 34(21):2881-98. PMC: 5695659. DOI: 10.1002/sim.6556. View

18.

Hernan M . The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology. 2009; 21(1):13-5. PMC: 3653612. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c1ea43. View

19.

Page M, Shamseer L, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco A . Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med. 2016; 13(5):e1002028. PMC: 4878797. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. View

20.

Goldkuhle M, Narayan V, Weigl A, Dahm P, Skoetz N . A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(3):e020869. PMC: 5875625. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020869. View