Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Exploring the characteristics, methods and reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event
Marius Goldkuhle1, Caroline Hirsch2, Claire Iannizzi2
1Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. marius.goldkuhle@uk-koeln.de.
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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Introduction To Survival Analysis
The primary goal of survival analysis is to estimate survival time—the time...
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Cancer Survival Analysis
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...

