Process / pipelineClinical / epidemiology

Meta-analytic competing risks analysis — Pooling Competing Risks Evidence Across Studies

Meta-analytic competing risks analysis pools results from multiple primary studies that each used a competing risks framework, allowing summary estimates of cause-specific or subdistribution hazard ratios and cumulative incidence functions. Because standard meta-analytic methods may misrepresent competing events, specialized pooling strategies are required that respect the subdistribution hazard structure introduced by Fine and Gray and the distinction between cause-specific and all-cause hazard models.

Open in MethodMindSoonVideoSoon

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Sources

  1. Riley, R. D., Hayden, J. A., Steyerberg, E. W., et al. (2013). Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research. PLOS Medicine, 10(2), e1001380. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001380
  2. Wolkewitz, M., Cooper, B. S., Bonten, M. J., Barnett, A. G., & Schumacher, M. (2014). Interpreting and comparing risks in the presence of competing events. BMJ, 349, g5060. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5060

Related methods

ScholarGateMeta-analytic competing risks analysis (Meta-Analysis of Competing Risks Studies). Retrieved 2026-06-04 from https://scholargate.app/en/epidemiology/meta-analytic-competing-risks-analysis