↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
13 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
647 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Guyot, AE Ades, Mario JNM Ouwens, Nicky J Welton

Abstract

The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on time-to-event outcomes that are usually reported are median time to events and Cox Hazard Ratio. These do not constitute the sufficient statistics required for meta-analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, and their use in secondary analyses requires strong assumptions that may not have been adequately tested. In order to enhance the quality of secondary data analyses, we propose a method which derives from the published Kaplan Meier survival curves a close approximation to the original individual patient time-to-event data from which they were generated.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 647 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 <1%
France 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 635 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 132 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 10%
Other 59 9%
Student > Master 55 9%
Student > Bachelor 48 7%
Other 105 16%
Unknown 181 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 172 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 45 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 38 6%
Mathematics 32 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 5%
Other 111 17%
Unknown 219 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2024.
All research outputs
#899,483
of 26,378,648 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#75
of 2,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,187
of 257,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,378,648 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.