ArticleEpidemiologic methods2025
Regression calibration for time-to-event outcomes: mitigating bias due to measurement error in real-world endpoints.
Article in Epidemiologic methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative bias analyses to address measurement error in time-to-event endpoints.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In drug development, there is increasing interest in leveraging real-world data (RWD) to augment trial data and generate evidence about treatment efficacy. However, comparing patient outcomes across trial and routine clinical care settings can be susceptible to bias, namely due to differences in how and when disease assessments occur. This can introduce measurement error in RWD relative to trial standards and lead to bias when comparing endpoints. We develop a novel statistical method, survival regression calibration (SRC), to mitigate measurement error bias in time-to-event RWD outcomes and improve inferences when combining trials with RWD in oncology. Methods: SRC extends upon existing regression calibration methods to address measurement error in time-to-event RWD outcomes. The method entails fitting separate Weibull regression models using trial-like ('true') and real-world-like ('mismeasured') outcome measures in a validation sample, and then calibrating parameter estimates in the full study according to the estimated bias in Weibull parameters. We evaluate performance of SRC under varying degrees of existing measurement error bias via simulation, and then illustrate how SRC can address measurement error when estimating median progression-free survival (mPFS) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma RWD. Results: When measurement error exists between trial and real-world mPFS, SRC can effectively account for its resulting bias. SRC yields greater reduction in measurement error bias than standard regression calibration methods, due to its suitability for time-to-event outcomes. Conclusions: Outcome measurement error is important to address when combining trials and RWD, as it may lead to biased results. Our SRC method helps mitigate such bias, improving comparability between real-world and trial endpoints and strengthening evidence of treatment efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.