Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (16)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vale, C. L
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, L. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vale, C. L
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, L. A
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31:107-111
© International Epidemiological Association 2002

Special Theme: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Effects of adjusting for censoring on meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes

Claire L Vale, Jayne F Tierney and Lesley A Stewart

Meta-Analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK.

C Vale, Meta-Analysis Group, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, 222 Euston Road, London NW1 2DA, UK. E-mail: cv{at}ctu.mrc.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews of published time-to-event outcomes commonly rely on calculating odds ratios (OR) at fixed points in time and where actual numbers at risk are not presented. These estimates are usually based on the total numbers included in the published analysis and take no account of censoring. We have assessed the impact of adjusting for censoring on weighting, estimates and statistical heterogeneity of meta-analyses in cancer.

Methods Meta-analyses of survival data for five meta-analyses of published trials in cancer were conducted. The OR and associated statistics were calculated based on unadjusted total numbers of participants and events. These were compared with calculations that first adjusted the numbers at risk for censoring using a simple model.

Results Pooled OR were changed in 17/24 cases. On average, there was a 2.6% difference between the adjusted and unadjusted OR. Confidence intervals were frequently wider for the adjusted OR. Adjusting also reduced weighting of individual trials with immature follow-up. In 18/24 cases, adjusting reduced statistical heterogeneity and affected the associated P-values.

Conclusions Reviewers conducting meta-analyses of published time-to-event data where actual numbers at risk are not available should adjust the numbers at risk, estimated from total numbers analysed, to account for immature data and censoring.

Keywords Meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, neoplasms, survival analysis, censoring, follow-up, time-to-event

Accepted 25 September 2001


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NEJMHome page
A. Kastrati, J. Mehilli, J. Pache, C. Kaiser, M. Valgimigli, H. Kelbaek, M. Menichelli, M. Sabate, M. J. Suttorp, D. Baumgart, et al.
Analysis of 14 Trials Comparing Sirolimus-Eluting Stents with Bare-Metal Stents
N. Engl. J. Med., March 8, 2007; 356(10): 1030 - 1039.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
I Shrier
Cochrane Reviews: new blocks on the kids
Br. J. Sports Med., December 1, 2003; 37(6): 473 - 474.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
M. Egger, S. Ebrahim, and G. D. Smith
Where now for meta-analysis?
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2002; 31(1): 1 - 5.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.