Estimating hazard ratios from published Kaplan‐Meier survival curves: A methods validation study

Ronak Saluja · Sierra Cheng · Keemo Althea delos Santos · Kelvin Chan

79 citations0/0 files storedResearch Synthesis Methods

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Various statistical methods have been developed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves for the purpose of performing meta-analyses. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability, accuracy, and precision of four commonly used methods by Guyot, Williamson, Parmar, and Hoyle and Henley. DESIGN: Pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology were identified from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) database (primary analysis) and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) drug approvals page (secondary analysis) between January 2012 and May 2016. Two reviewers independently reconstructed HRs using each method on KM curves extracted from each trial and compared them with reported HRs (gold standard). Bland-Altman plots and summary statistics were calculated to assess accuracy and precision of these methods. Interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). These four methods were also applied to KM curves of different structures (ie, flat versus steep curves). RESULTS: A total of 118 KM curves (55 RCTs) and 77 KM curves (46 RCTs) were extracted from pCODR and FDA, respectively. In the primary analysis, the Guyot method was the most accurate with the lowest mean error (0.0094; 95% CI, -0.0012-0.020). All four methods had excellent interrater reliability. The Guyot method showed the smallest bias and greatest precision on the Bland-Altman plots. The Guyot method was consistently superior in both the secondary and all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In the absence of reported HRs, we recommend that researchers consider the Guyot method to reconstruct HRs from KM curves when performing aggregate data meta-analyses.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 79 citations exist upstream.

References

1986STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2007Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis 2010Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement 1998Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints 2012Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves 2005Meta‐Analysis in Medical Research 2009Meta-Analysis in Medical Research

Cited by

2025Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis: updated guidance 2021Using median survival in meta-analysis of experimental time-to-event data 2020A non-linear optimisation method to extract summary statistics from Kaplan-Meier survival plots using the published P value

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.