Sarah Lacny1, Todd Wilson1, Fiona Clement2, Derek J Roberts3, Peter Faris4, William A Ghali5, Deborah A Marshall6. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. 3. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; Department of Surgery, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; Alberta Health Services, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403-29 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada; Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. 5. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. 6. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada; McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6, Canada. Electronic address: damarsha@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis overestimates cumulative incidence in competing risks (CRs) settings. The extent of overestimation (or its clinical significance) has been questioned, and CRs methods are infrequently used. This meta-analysis compares the Kaplan-Meier method to the cumulative incidence function (CIF), a CRs method. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science (1992-2016), and article bibliographies for studies estimating cumulative incidence using the Kaplan-Meier method and CIF. For studies with sufficient data, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing Kaplan-Meier and CIF estimates using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. We performed stratified meta-analyses by clinical area, rate of CRs (CRs/events of interest), and follow-up time. RESULTS: Of 2,192 identified abstracts, we included 77 studies in the systematic review and meta-analyzed 55. The pooled RR demonstrated the Kaplan-Meier estimate was 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.36, 1.47] times higher than the CIF. Overestimation was highest among studies with high rates of CRs [RR = 2.36 (95% CI: 1.79, 3.12)], studies related to hepatology [RR = 2.60 (95% CI: 2.12, 3.19)], and obstetrics and gynecology [RR = 1.84 (95% CI: 1.52, 2.23)]. CONCLUSION: The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the cumulative incidence across 10 clinical areas. Using CRs methods will ensure accurate results inform clinical and policy decisions.
OBJECTIVES: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis overestimates cumulative incidence in competing risks (CRs) settings. The extent of overestimation (or its clinical significance) has been questioned, and CRs methods are infrequently used. This meta-analysis compares the Kaplan-Meier method to the cumulative incidence function (CIF), a CRs method. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Web of Science (1992-2016), and article bibliographies for studies estimating cumulative incidence using the Kaplan-Meier method and CIF. For studies with sufficient data, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing Kaplan-Meier and CIF estimates using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. We performed stratified meta-analyses by clinical area, rate of CRs (CRs/events of interest), and follow-up time. RESULTS: Of 2,192 identified abstracts, we included 77 studies in the systematic review and meta-analyzed 55. The pooled RR demonstrated the Kaplan-Meier estimate was 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.36, 1.47] times higher than the CIF. Overestimation was highest among studies with high rates of CRs [RR = 2.36 (95% CI: 1.79, 3.12)], studies related to hepatology [RR = 2.60 (95% CI: 2.12, 3.19)], and obstetrics and gynecology [RR = 1.84 (95% CI: 1.52, 2.23)]. CONCLUSION: The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the cumulative incidence across 10 clinical areas. Using CRs methods will ensure accurate results inform clinical and policy decisions.
Authors: Robert J Reynolds; Igor V Bukhtiyarov; Galina I Tikhonova; Steven M Day; Igor B Ushakov; Tatyana Y U Gorchakova Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Alessandro Tafuri; David D Smith; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Sarah Cole; Aliasger Shakir; Sarmad Sadeghi; Nicholas J Vogelzang; David Quinn; Parkash S Gill; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 3.121
Authors: Minna Pihlajamäki; Jukka Uitti; Heikki Arola; Mikko Korhonen; Tapio Nummi; Simo Taimela Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2019-11-30 Impact factor: 3.015