A systematic review of using and reporting survival analyses in acute lymphoblastic leukemia literature.

Q2 Medicine
BMC Hematology Pub Date : 2016-06-08 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s12878-016-0055-7
Chatree Chai-Adisaksopha, Alfonso Iorio, Christopher Hillis, Wendy Lim, Mark Crowther
{"title":"A systematic review of using and reporting survival analyses in acute lymphoblastic leukemia literature.","authors":"Chatree Chai-Adisaksopha,&nbsp;Alfonso Iorio,&nbsp;Christopher Hillis,&nbsp;Wendy Lim,&nbsp;Mark Crowther","doi":"10.1186/s12878-016-0055-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds: </strong>Survival analysis is commonly used to determine the treatment effect among acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients who undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) or other treatments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and reporting of survival analyses in these articles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from inception to April 2015. Clinical trials of patients with ALL comparing allo-SCT compared to another treatment were included. We included only studies that used survival analysis as a part of the statistical methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 14 studies included in the review. Sample size estimation was described in 4 (29 %) studies. Only 4 (29 %) studies reported the list of covariates assessed in the Cox regression and 6 (43 %) studies provided a description of censorship. All studies reported survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparisons between groups were investigated using the log-rank test and Wilcoxon test. Crossing survival curves were observed in 11(79 %) studies. The Cox regression model was incorporated in 10 (71 %) studies. None of the studies assessed the Cox proportional hazards assumption or goodness-of-fit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use and reporting of survival analysis in adult ALL patients undergoing allo-SCT have significant limitations. Notably, the finding of crossing survival curves was common and none of the studies assessed for the proportional hazards assumption. We encourage authors, reviewers and editors to improve the quality of the use and reporting of survival analysis in the hematology literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":37740,"journal":{"name":"BMC Hematology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12878-016-0055-7","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12878-016-0055-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Backgrounds: Survival analysis is commonly used to determine the treatment effect among acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients who undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) or other treatments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and reporting of survival analyses in these articles.

Methods: We performed a systematic review by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from inception to April 2015. Clinical trials of patients with ALL comparing allo-SCT compared to another treatment were included. We included only studies that used survival analysis as a part of the statistical methods.

Results: There were 14 studies included in the review. Sample size estimation was described in 4 (29 %) studies. Only 4 (29 %) studies reported the list of covariates assessed in the Cox regression and 6 (43 %) studies provided a description of censorship. All studies reported survival curves using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparisons between groups were investigated using the log-rank test and Wilcoxon test. Crossing survival curves were observed in 11(79 %) studies. The Cox regression model was incorporated in 10 (71 %) studies. None of the studies assessed the Cox proportional hazards assumption or goodness-of-fit.

Conclusions: The use and reporting of survival analysis in adult ALL patients undergoing allo-SCT have significant limitations. Notably, the finding of crossing survival curves was common and none of the studies assessed for the proportional hazards assumption. We encourage authors, reviewers and editors to improve the quality of the use and reporting of survival analysis in the hematology literature.

Abstract Image

对急性淋巴细胞白血病文献中使用和报道的生存分析进行系统回顾。
背景:生存分析通常用于确定急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL)患者接受同种异体干细胞移植(allogeneic stem cell transplantation, allo-SCT)或其他治疗的治疗效果。本研究的目的是评估这些文章中生存分析的使用和报道。方法:通过检索MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行系统综述。纳入了ALL患者的临床试验,将同种异体细胞移植与其他治疗方法进行比较。我们只纳入了将生存分析作为统计方法一部分的研究。结果:共纳入14项研究。4项(29%)研究描述了样本量估计。只有4项(29%)研究报告了Cox回归评估的协变量列表,6项(43%)研究提供了审查的描述。所有研究均采用Kaplan-Meier法报告生存曲线。组间比较采用log-rank检验和Wilcoxon检验。在11项(79%)研究中观察到交叉生存曲线。Cox回归模型纳入10项(71%)研究。没有一项研究评估了Cox比例风险假设或拟合优度。结论:在接受同种异体细胞移植的成人ALL患者中,生存分析的使用和报告存在显著的局限性。值得注意的是,交叉生存曲线的发现很常见,没有一项研究评估了比例风险假设。我们鼓励作者、审稿人和编辑提高血液学文献中生存分析的使用和报告的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Hematology
BMC Hematology Medicine-Hematology
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: BMC Hematology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on basic, experimental and clinical research related to hematology. The journal welcomes submissions on non-malignant and malignant hematological diseases, hemostasis and thrombosis, hematopoiesis, stem cells and transplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信