↓ Skip to main content

Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data: a review of reporting quality with a view to meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data: a review of reporting quality with a view to meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0272-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Sudell, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona, Catrin Tudur-Smith

Abstract

Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data are commonly used to simultaneously analyse correlated data in single study cases. Synthesis of evidence from multiple studies using meta-analysis is a natural next step but its feasibility depends heavily on the standard of reporting of joint models in the medical literature. During this review we aim to assess the current standard of reporting of joint models applied in the literature, and to determine whether current reporting standards would allow or hinder future aggregate data meta-analyses of model results. We undertook a literature review of non-methodological studies that involved joint modelling of longitudinal and time-to-event medical data. Study characteristics were extracted and an assessment of whether separate meta-analyses for longitudinal, time-to-event and association parameters were possible was made. The 65 studies identified used a wide range of joint modelling methods in a selection of software. Identified studies concerned a variety of disease areas. The majority of studies reported adequate information to conduct a meta-analysis (67.7% for longitudinal parameter aggregate data meta-analysis, 69.2% for time-to-event parameter aggregate data meta-analysis, 76.9% for association parameter aggregate data meta-analysis). In some cases model structure was difficult to ascertain from the published reports. Whilst extraction of sufficient information to permit meta-analyses was possible in a majority of cases, the standard of reporting of joint models should be maintained and improved. Recommendations for future practice include clear statement of model structure, of values of estimated parameters, of software used and of statistical methods applied.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 26 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,134,164
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,443
of 2,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,690
of 418,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.