Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research article

Testing the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression and dealing with possible non-proportionality in total joint arthroplasty research: methodological perspectives and review

Authors: Ilari Kuitunen, Ville T. Ponkilainen, Mikko M. Uimonen, Antti Eskelinen, Aleksi Reito

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Survival analysis and effect of covariates on survival time is a central research interest. Cox proportional hazards regression remains as a gold standard in the survival analysis. The Cox model relies on the assumption of proportional hazards (PH) across different covariates. PH assumptions should be assessed and handled if violated. Our aim was to investigate the reporting of the Cox regression model details and testing of the PH assumption in survival analysis in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) studies.

Methods

We conducted a review in the PubMed database on 28th August 2019. A total of 1154 studies were identified. The abstracts of these studies were screened for words “cox and “hazard*” and if either was found the abstract was read. The abstract had to fulfill the following criteria to be included in the full-text phase: topic was knee or hip TJA surgery; survival analysis was used, and hazard ratio reported. If all the presented criteria were met, the full-text version of the article was then read. The full-text was included if Cox method was used to analyze TJA survival. After accessing the full-texts 318 articles were included in final analysis.

Results

The PH assumption was mentioned in 114 of the included studies (36%). KM analysis was used in 281 (88%) studies and the KM curves were presented graphically in 243 of these (87%). In 110 (45%) studies, the KM survival curves crossed in at least one of the presented figures. The most common way to test the PH assumption was to inspect the log-minus-log plots (n = 59). The time-axis division method was the most used corrected model (n = 30) in cox analysis. Of the 318 included studies only 63 (20%) met the following criteria: PH assumption mentioned, PH assumption tested, testing method of the PH assumption named, the result of the testing mentioned, and the Cox regression model corrected, if required.

Conclusions

Reporting and testing of the PH assumption and dealing with non-proportionality in hip and knee TJA studies was limited. More awareness and education regarding the assumptions behind the used statistical models among researchers, reviewers and editors are needed to improve the quality of TJA research. This could be achieved by better collaboration with methodologists and statisticians and introducing more specific reporting guidelines for TJA studies. Neglecting obvious non-proportionality undermines the overall research efforts since causes of non-proportionality, such as possible underlying pathomechanisms, are not considered and discussed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode C. Survival analysis of joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):697–704.CrossRefPubMed Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode C. Survival analysis of joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):697–704.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc B (Methodological). 1972;34(2):187–220.CrossRef Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc B (Methodological). 1972;34(2):187–220.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kleinbaum D, Klein M. Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 1996. Kleinbaum D, Klein M. Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text. 1st ed. New York: Springer; 1996.
8.
go back to reference Schemper M, Wakounig S, Heinze G. The estimation of average hazard ratios by weighted Cox regression. Stat Med. 2009;28(19):2473–89.CrossRefPubMed Schemper M, Wakounig S, Heinze G. The estimation of average hazard ratios by weighted Cox regression. Stat Med. 2009;28(19):2473–89.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Royston P, Parmar MKB. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:152.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Royston P, Parmar MKB. Restricted mean survival time: an alternative to the hazard ratio for the design and analysis of randomized trials with a time-to-event outcome. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:152.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
11.
go back to reference Royston P, Parmar MKB. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med. 2011;30(19):2409–21.CrossRefPubMed Royston P, Parmar MKB. The use of restricted mean survival time to estimate the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials when the proportional hazards assumption is in doubt. Stat Med. 2011;30(19):2409–21.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(4):337–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(4):337–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Turkiewicz A, Luta G, Hughes HV, Ranstam J. Statistical mistakes and how to avoid them - lessons learned from the reproducibility crisis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2018;26(11):1409–11.CrossRef Turkiewicz A, Luta G, Hughes HV, Ranstam J. Statistical mistakes and how to avoid them - lessons learned from the reproducibility crisis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2018;26(11):1409–11.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Amer Stat Assoc. 1958;53(282):457–81.CrossRef Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Amer Stat Assoc. 1958;53(282):457–81.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719–48.PubMed Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719–48.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R. Competing events influence estimated survival probability: when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;462:229–33.CrossRefPubMed Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R. Competing events influence estimated survival probability: when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;462:229–33.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263–7.CrossRefPubMed Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263–7.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Vandenbroucke JP. Strega, strobe, stard, squire, moose, prisma, gnosis, trend, orion, coreq, quorom, remark... and consort: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):594–6.CrossRefPubMed Vandenbroucke JP. Strega, strobe, stard, squire, moose, prisma, gnosis, trend, orion, coreq, quorom, remark... and consort: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):594–6.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkelä K, Espehaug B, Pedersen AB, et al. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(3):253–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkelä K, Espehaug B, Pedersen AB, et al. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(3):253–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Götzsche PC, Vandenbrucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Götzsche PC, Vandenbrucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.CrossRef
28.
Metadata
Title
Testing the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression and dealing with possible non-proportionality in total joint arthroplasty research: methodological perspectives and review
Authors
Ilari Kuitunen
Ville T. Ponkilainen
Mikko M. Uimonen
Antti Eskelinen
Aleksi Reito
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04379-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2021 Go to the issue