Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 30;22:34. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01520-0

Table 1.

Assessment of data reconstruction quality

Publication MS G1 MS G2 HR [CI]
Bang et al. (2020) [37] 5.80 (5.88) 4.30 (4.44) 0.83 [0.53, 1.31] (0.82 [0.52, 1.29])
Becker et al. (2020) [39] not defined 6.00 (6.21) 5.50 (5.51)
Bellmunt et al. (2017) [45] 3.30 (3.24) 2.10 (2.08) 0.98 [0.81, 1.19] (0.93 [0.77, 1.13])
Cortes et al. (2019) [46] 4.90 (4.94) 4.70 (4.72) 0.63 (0.62)
Ferris et al. (2016) [41] 2.00 (2.02) 2.30 (2.29) 0.89 [0.70,1.13] (0.89 [0.70,1.14])
Fradet et al. (2019) [47] 3.30 (3.35) 2.10 (2.16) 0.96 [0.79, 1.16] (0.92 [0.77, 1.11])
Godfrey et al. (2018) [36] – – 1.40 [0.54, 3.61] (1.40 [0.53, 3.69])
Golan et al. (2019) [38] 18.90 (18.90) 18.10 (18.10) 0.91 [0.56, 1.46] (0.88 [0.55, 1.42])
Hammel et al. (2019) [35] 21.20 (21.36) 6.00 (5.93) 0.72 [0.41, 1.27] (0.72 [0.42, 1.24])
Jones et al. (2020) [34] 26.00 (26.00) 20.0 (18.80) 0.59 [0.34, 1.05] (0.58 [0.33, 1.02])
Jones et al. (2018) [33] 15.10 (15.08) 8.10 (8.02) 0.72 [0.45, 1.17] (0.71 [0.44, 1.15])
Kotani et al. (2019) [48] 8.60 (8.62) 8.00 (8.02) 0.74 [0.48, 1.14] (0.72 [0.47, 1.11])
Kreuzer et al. (2020) [50] 19.40 (19.40) 20.90 (21.30) 1.22 [0.60, 2.47] (1.26 [0.62, 2.56])
Lu et al. (2018) [40] 4.63 (4.68) 4.23 (4.33) 0.78 [0.60, 1.00] (0.74 [0.55, 1.01])
Malone et al. (2020) [49] – – 0.66 [0.41, 1.07] (0.68 [0.42, 1.10])
Motzer et al. (2015) [42] 4.60 (4.46) 4.40 (4.07) 0.88 [0.75, 1.03] (0.87 [0.98, 1.34])
Mukai et al. (2019) [44] 27.90 (27.90) 16.60 (16.60) 0.55 [0.23, 1.29] (0.55 [0.23, 1.29])
Toxopeus et al. (2018) [43] – – 1.02 [0.75, 1.39] (1.01 [0.75, 1.39])

Quality of data reconstruction regarding the published median survival (MS) in group 1 and 2 (G1 and G2), the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For each study the published statistics are given with the corresponding statistics of the reconstructed data in parentheses. Three studies did not report MS (−) and two did not provide confidence intervals