Reporting and methodological quality of survival analysis in articles published in Chinese oncology journals

Abstract

Survival analysis methods have gained widespread use in the filed of oncology. For achievement of reliable results, the methodological process and report quality is crucial. This review provides the first examination of methodological characteristics and reporting quality of survival analysis in articles published in leading Chinese oncology journals.To examine methodological and reporting quality of survival analysis, to identify some common deficiencies, to desirable precautions in the analysis, and relate advice for authors, readers, and editors.A total of 242 survival analysis articles were included to be evaluated from 1492 articles published in 4 leading Chinese oncology journals in 2013. Articles were evaluated according to 16 established items for proper use and reporting of survival analysis.The application rates of Kaplan–Meier, life table, log-rank test, Breslow test, and Cox proportional hazards model (Cox model) were 91.74%, 3.72%, 78.51%, 0.41%, and 46.28%, respectively, no article used the parametric method for survival analysis. Multivariate Cox model was conducted in 112 articles (46.28%). Follow-up rates were mentioned in 155 articles (64.05%), of which 4 articles were under 80% and the lowest was 75.25%, 55 articles were100%. The report rates of all types of survival endpoint were lower than 10%. Eleven of 100 articles which reported a loss to follow-up had stated how to treat it in the analysis. One hundred thirty articles (53.72%) did not perform multivariate analysis. One hundred thirty-nine articles (57.44%) did not define the survival time. Violations and omissions of methodological guidelines included no mention of pertinent checks for proportional hazard assumption; no report of testing for interactions and collinearity between independent variables; no report of calculation method of sample size. Thirty-six articles (32.74%) reported the methods of independent variable selection. The above defects could make potentially inaccurate, misleading of the reported results, or difficult to interpret.There are gaps in the conduct and reporting of survival analysis in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, severe deficiencies were noted. More endorsement by journals of the report guideline for survival analysis may improve articles quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to oncology clinicians. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to consider survival analysis more carefully and cooperate more closely with statisticians and epidemiologists.

PIK3CA Mutations and Their Impact on Survival Outcomes of Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review

“…The scale examines the risk of bias in observational studies by evaluating the selection of the study groups (maximum rating 4 points), the comparability of the groups (maximum rating 2 points – one for stage of the disease and another one for histological type [squamous cell carcinoma vs. other types]), and the ascertainment of the exposure or outcome of interest (maximum rating 3 points) [13]. The quality of outcome reporting was also assessed using 16 items that were proposed by Zhu et al [14].…”

Assessing the statistical reporting quality in high-impact factor urology journals

“…This checklist was established based on the SAMPL guidelines (6) and other previously published studies (10-12), and the items were modified to be listed in a simple and readable manner. All of the logistic regression assessment items droved from Zhang’s research (13), and Cox regression items were from Zhu’s research (14). The checklist consists of 7 items (marked *) that must be reported and 39 items that are subject to selective reporting based on the statistical methods used.…”

Multi-layered network-based pathway activity inference using directed random walks: application to predicting clinical outcomes in urologic cancer

“…The kidney papillary cell carcinoma (KIRP) and prostate cancer (PRAD) dataset had a sufficient number of samples; however, those cancers were excluded due to the excessive rate of censoring, which was 85.1% and 98.2%. Excessive censoring rate leads to the risk of bias to the prediction model and severely harms the model performance and interpretation of the results (Zhu et al, 2017).…”