IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v20y2000i1p104-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Assessment of Methods to Combine Published Survival Curves

Author

Listed:
  • Craig C. Earle
  • George A. Wells

Abstract

Purpose. To assess the accuracies of different techniques for combining published survival curves, for use in disease modeling applications. Methods. Five methods were identified: 1) iterative generalized least-squares (IGLS), 2) meta-analysis of failure-time data with adjustment for covariates (MFD), 3) nonlinear regression (NLR), 4) log relative risk (LRR), and 5) weighted LRR (w-LRR). Each method was used to combine the survival curves from eight single-arm Phase II trials of chemotherapy in 918 patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The resulting summary curves were compared with the curve calculated from the corresponding individual patient data (IPD). Results. All methods were able to produce accurate summary survival curves statistically similar to the IPD-derived curve. Maximum discrepancies ranged from 1.8% to 4.7%. MFD appeared to be the most accurate when censoring information was complete. Characteristics of the component trials that adversely affected the accuracies of the different techniques were 1) a high proportion of censored observations (MFD); 2) variability in the length of follow-up (IGLS, NLR, LRR, w-LRR); and 3) the heterogeneity of the treatment results (NLR, w-LRR). Conclusions. All methods were able to accurately reproduce summary survival curves from the published literature. The best method depends on characteristics of the data and the purpose of the analysis. Key words: survival analysis; meta-analysis; life tables; proportional hazards models. (Med Decis Making 2000;20:104-111)

Suggested Citation

  • Craig C. Earle & George A. Wells, 2000. "An Assessment of Methods to Combine Published Survival Curves," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 104-111, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:104-111
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0002000113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0002000113
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0002000113?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Béranger Lueza & Audrey Mauguen & Jean-Pierre Pignon & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Julia Bonastre & MAR-LC Collaborative Group, 2016. "Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:20:y:2000:i:1:p:104-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.