Meta-analytic competing risks analysis
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.
Source record
Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.
- 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
- 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
Curated claims
Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.
This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.
Related methods
Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.