Elfriede Bollschweiler1. 1. Department of Visceral and Vascular Surgery, University of Cologne, Joseph Stelzmann Strasse 9, 50931 Cologne, Germany. Elfriede.Bollschweiler@medizin.uni-koeln.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Especially in malign diseases, the therapeutic decision depends on the prognosis for the individual patient. A prognosis is a prediction of the future course of disease following its onset. Graphical representation of such statistical results-such as the well-known Kaplan-Meier curve-is often used to assist readers of a paper in the interpretation. However, mistakes and distortions frequently arise in the display and interpretation of survival plots. This review aims to highlight such pitfalls and provide recommendations for future practice. METHODS: Special topics are discussed: the criteria for the presentation of the survival curve, the problem of missing values, estimation of the prognosis in the presence of competing risks, comparison of treatment effects and analysis of survival by tumour-response category.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Especially in malign diseases, the therapeutic decision depends on the prognosis for the individual patient. A prognosis is a prediction of the future course of disease following its onset. Graphical representation of such statistical results-such as the well-known Kaplan-Meier curve-is often used to assist readers of a paper in the interpretation. However, mistakes and distortions frequently arise in the display and interpretation of survival plots. This review aims to highlight such pitfalls and provide recommendations for future practice. METHODS: Special topics are discussed: the criteria for the presentation of the survival curve, the problem of missing values, estimation of the prognosis in the presence of competing risks, comparison of treatment effects and analysis of survival by tumour-response category.
Authors: E Bollschweiler; P M Schneider; S P Mönig; A Altendorf-Hofmann; U Mansmann; W Lehmacher; P M Schlag; S Merkel; W Hohenberger; J R Izbicki; P Hermanek; A H Hölscher Journal: Chirurg Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: J J Bonenkamp; J Hermans; M Sasako; C J van de Velde; K Welvaart; I Songun; S Meyer; J T Plukker; P Van Elk; H Obertop; D J Gouma; J J van Lanschot; C W Taat; P W de Graaf; M F von Meyenfeldt; H Tilanus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ralf Metzger; Ute Warnecke-Eberz; Hakan Alakus; Fabian Kütting; Jan Brabender; Daniel Vallböhmer; Peter P Grimminger; Stefan P Mönig; Uta Drebber; Arnulf H Hölscher; Elfriede Bollschweiler Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Fabio Bagante; Gaya Spolverato; Matthew Weiss; Sorin Alexandrescu; Hugo P Marques; Luca Aldrighetti; Shishir K Maithel; Carlo Pulitano; Todd W Bauer; Feng Shen; George A Poultsides; Oliver Soubrane; Guillaume Martel; B Groot Koerkamp; Alfredo Guglielmi; Endo Itaru; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Antonio Scalfari; Volker Knappertz; Gary Cutter; Douglas S Goodin; Raymond Ashton; George C Ebers Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ralf Metzger; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Uta Drebber; Stefan P Mönig; Wolfgang Schröder; Hakan Alakus; Martin Kocher; Stephan E Baldus; Arnulf H Hölscher Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Matthias Schmidt; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Markus Dietlein; Stefan P Mönig; Carsten Kobe; Daniel Vallböhmer; Daniel Vallboehmer; Wolfgang Eschner; Arnulf Hölscher; Harald Schicha Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236