Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 155 No. 1 (2025)

Evaluation and testing of the proportional hazards assumption in analysis of time-to-event data in subgroup analysis of randomised controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.57187/s.4022
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2025;155:4022
Published
15.01.2025

Summary

BACKGROUND: When Cox regression models are used to analyse time-to-event data, the proportional hazard assumption (PHA) must be reassured to obtain valid results. Transparent reporting of the statistics used is therefore essential to interpret research. This study aimed to assess the quality of statistical reporting and testing of the PHA in subgroup analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS: All published articles (see appendix 1) in the top quartile (25%) of surgical journals from 2019 to 2021 were screened in a literature review according to the ClarivateTM journal citation report impact factor. Subgroup analyses of surgical RCT data that used Cox models were identified. Statistical reporting was rated using a previously established 12-item PHA Reporting Score as our primary endpoint. For original surgical publications, the PHA was formally tested on reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier estimators. Methodological reporting quality was rated according to the CONSORT statement. Digitalisation was only possible in studies where a Kaplan-Meier estimator including numbers at risk per time interval was published. All results from the subgroup analyses were compared to primary surgical RCT reports and benchmark RCTs using Cox models published in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.

RESULTS: Thirty-two studies reporting secondary subgroup analyses on surgical RCT data using Cox models were identified. Statistical reporting of surgical subgroup publications was significantly inferior compared to original benchmark publications: median PHA Reporting Score 50% (interquartile range [IQR]: 39 to 58) vs 58% (IQR: 42 to 67), p <0.001. The subgroups did not differ in comparison to primary surgical RCTs: median PHA Reporting Score 50% (IQR: 39 to 58) vs 42% (IQR: 33 to 58), p = 0.286. Adherence to the CONSORT reporting standards did significantly differ between subgroup studies and benchmark publications (p <0.001) as well as between subgroup studies and primary surgical RCT reports: 13 (12.5 to 14) vs 13 (IQR: 11 to 13), p = 0.042.

CONCLUSION: Statistical methodological reporting of secondary subgroup analyses from surgical RCTs was inferior to benchmark publications but not worse than primary surgical RCT reports. A comprehensive statistical review process and statistical reporting guidelines might help improve the reporting quality.

References

  1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials. 2010 Mar;11(1):32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32
  2. Andersen PK. Survival analysis 1982-1991: the second decade of the proportional hazards regression model. Stat Med. 1991 Dec;10(12):1931–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780101208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780101208
  3. Mantel N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966 Mar;50(3):163–70.
  4. Stensrud MJ, Hernán MA. Why Test for Proportional Hazards? JAMA. 2020 Apr;323(14):1401–2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1267 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1267
  5. Li H, Han D, Hou Y, Chen H, Chen Z. Statistical inference methods for two crossing survival curves: a comparison of methods. PLoS One. 2015 Jan;10(1):e0116774. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116774
  6. Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PA. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ. 1994 Dec;309(6970):1677–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6970.1677 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6970.1677
  7. Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):1–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta5330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta5330
  8. Stubenrouch FE, Cohen ES, Bossuyt PM, Koelemay MJ, van der Vet PC, Ubbink DT. Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials. BJS Open. 2020 Apr;4(2):171–81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50240 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50240
  9. Speich B, Mc Cord KA, Agarwal A, Gloy V, Gryaznov D, Moffa G, et al. Reporting Quality of Journal Abstracts for Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials Before and After the Implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Abstracts. World J Surg. 2019 Oct;43(10):2371–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05064-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05064-1
  10. Limb C, White A, Fielding A, Lunt A, Borrelli MR, Alsafi Z, et al. Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement. Ann Surg. 2019 Mar;269(3):e25–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002630 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002630
  11. Rulli E, Ghilotti F, Biagioli E, Porcu L, Marabese M, D’Incalci M, et al. Assessment of proportional hazard assumption in aggregate data: a systematic review on statistical methodology in clinical trials using time-to-event endpoint. Br J Cancer. 2018 Dec;119(12):1456–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0302-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0302-8
  12. Rahman R, Fell G, Trippa L, Alexander BM. Violations of the proportional hazards assumption in randomized phase III oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15 suppl):2543. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.2543 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.2543
  13. Kuemmerli C, Sparn M, Birrer DL, Müller PC, Meuli L. Prevalence and consequences of non-proportional hazards in surgical randomized controlled trials. Br J Surg. 2021 Jul;108(7):e247–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab110
  14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul;6(7):e1000097. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  15. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, Saijo N, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep;361(10):947–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810699
  16. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ; United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010 May;362(20):1863–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0909305 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0909305
  17. Meuli L, Kuemmerli C. The Hazard of Non-proportional Hazards in Time to Event Analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2021 Sep;62(3):495–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.05.036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.05.036
  18. Chai-Adisaksopha C, Iorio A, Hillis C, Lim W, Crowther M. A systematic review of using and reporting survival analyses in acute lymphoblastic leukemia literature. BMC Hematol. 2016 Jun;16(1):17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12878-016-0055-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12878-016-0055-7
  19. Lapointe-Shaw L, Bouck Z, Howell NA, Lange T, Orchanian-Cheff A, Austin PC, et al. Mediation analysis with a time-to-event outcome: a review of use and reporting in healthcare research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Oct;18(1):118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0578-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0578-7
  20. Trinquart L, Jacot J, Conner SC, Porcher R. Comparison of Treatment Effects Measured by the Hazard Ratio and by the Ratio of Restricted Mean Survival Times in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2016 May;34(15):1813–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.2488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.2488
  21. Alexander BM, Schoenfeld JD, Trippa L. Hazards of Hazard Ratios - Deviations from Model Assumptions in Immunotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar;378(12):1158–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1716612 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1716612
  22. Saha S, Saint S, Christakis DA. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 Jan;91(1):42–6.
  23. Davis CH, Bass BL, Behrns KE, Lillemoe KD, Garden OJ, Roh MS, et al. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 May;3(1):4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0048-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0048-0
  24. Efird J. Blocked randomization with randomly selected block sizes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Jan;8(1):15–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8010015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8010015

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>