Evidence mapPaperPMID 41794694Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026

Time to benefit estimation in multicenter studies using flexible hazard shared frailty models.

Mengyi Lu, Zhuoyue Wu, Yang Zhao, Fang Shao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mengyi LuDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Zhuoyue WuDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China.
Yang ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China. yzhao@njmu.edu.cn.
Fang ShaoDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 211166, China. shaofang@njmu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82173620 and 82373690National Natural Science Foundation of China 82404383National Natural Science Foundation of China 82473732Research and Innovation Project of Nanjing Institute of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University NCX2405the Open Project Fund of Key Laboratory of Biosafety Defense, Ministry of Education KLBD-2024-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTime to benefit (TTB) has emerged as a clinically interpretable estimand for characterizing when treatment effects become meaningful over time. Unlike conventional survival summaries, TTB is implicitly defined through marginal differences in survival probabilities and is therefore highly sensitive to modeling assumptions. In multicenter studies involving clustered time-to-event data, unobserved heterogeneity and misspecification of the baseline hazard present additional challenges for coherent TTB estimation.

methodsWe propose a unified framework for estimating TTB in clustered survival settings using marginal survival modeling with shared frailty. Specifically, TTB is defined on the marginal population scale by integrating over the frailty distribution, ensuring coherence between the estimand and its clinical interpretation. Both parametric and flexible spline-based baseline hazard models are evaluated. Uncertainty is quantified using the Delta method and Monte Carlo (MC)-based inference procedures. Extensive simulation studies are conducted to characterize estimator behavior under varying degrees of heterogeneity, censoring, and hazard misspecification. Furthermore, the framework is illustrated using data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a large multicenter randomized clinical trial.

resultsSimulation results indicate that ignoring latent heterogeneity or misspecifying the baseline hazard can bias TTB estimation and produce miscalibrated confidence intervals, particularly under small absolute risk reduction thresholds. Flexible hazard models combined with MC-based inference yield more stable estimates and improved coverage in the presence of model misspecification. In the SPRINT application, TTB point estimates remained relatively consistent across modeling approaches, while statistically significant frailty effects revealed meaningful between-site heterogeneity, highlighting its importance for accurate uncertainty quantification.

conclusionsTTB is a model-sensitive implicit estimand; reliable estimation in clustered survival settings requires explicit alignment among the estimand definition, the survival model, and the inference strategy. The proposed framework provides a principled and practical approach to TTB estimation in multicenter studies, facilitating transparent and interpretable reporting of TTB in both clinical and real-world research contexts.

Indexed as

FrailtyModels, StatisticalMulticenter Studies as TopicAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansMonte Carlo MethodProportional Hazards ModelsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurvival AnalysisClustered survival dataMarginal survival modelingShared frailty modelsTime to benefitUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID41794694
PMCPMC13081241

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.