Additional file 2: of Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data: a review of reporting quality with a view to meta-analysis

This file includes a blank example of the data collection form used to record information from the studies identified by this review. (DOCX 14 kb

Summary of results of assessment of interactions.

<p>⁽¹⁾ Yes: external evidence (i.e. other reviews or studies) was reported to have been used to choose each covariate in the methods of the protocol and/or review. No: no external evidence was reported to have been used for choosing each covariate reported in the methods of the protocol and/or review.</p><p>⁽²⁾ Yes: rationale given for choosing each covariate in the methods of the protocol and/or review. No: rationale not given for choosing each covariate in the methods of the protocol and/or review.</p><p>⁽³⁾ Yes: each covariate stated in the methods of the protocol. No: at least one covariate was not stated in the methods of the protocol but was reported in the methods or results of the review.</p><p>⁽⁴⁾ Yes: each covariate chosen post-hoc (i.e. in the review but not in the protocol) was identified as a post-hoc covariate in the methods or results of the review. No: at least one covariate chosen post-hoc was not identified as a post-hoc covariate in the methods or results of the review. NA: no covariate was chosen post-hoc.</p><p>⁽⁵⁾ Yes: less than six covariates reported in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review; No: six or more covariates reported in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review.</p><p>⁽⁶⁾ Yes: missing covariate data was reported to be planned to be sought in the methods of the protocol and reported to be sought in the methods of the review. No: missing covariate data was not reported to be sought in the methods of the review and/or planned to be sought in the methods of the protocol. (e.g. ‘data’ was reported to be sought or planned to be sought, or no method was reported in the methods in the protocol and/or review).</p><p>⁽⁷⁾ Yes: for reviews including study-level covariates (i.e. intervention, methodological, outcome-related, or other covariates), AD analyses were reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol and, if interaction analyses were carried out, reported to be carried out in the methods and/or results of the review. No: for reviews including study-level covariates, IPD analyses were reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol and/or carried out in the methods and/or results of the review. NA: no study-level covariates. We presumed AD analyses were planned/or done if there was no mention of IPD.</p><p>⁽⁸⁾ Yes: for reviews that carried out AD analyses for the outcome, the number of trials (as calculated using the method described in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0128804#pone.0128804.s005" target="_blank">S3 Table</a>) in the interaction analysis for each covariate is at least ten for the outcome. No: for reviews that carried out AD analyses for the outcome, the number of trials in the interaction analysis for each covariate is less than ten for the outcome. NA: no AD interaction analyses in the review for the outcome. We presumed AD analyses were done if there was no mention of IPD, and results from interaction analyses were reported or it was reported that interaction analyses were carried out.</p><p>⁽⁹⁾ Yes: for reviews including patient-level covariates (i.e. patient covariates), IPD analyses were reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol and, if interaction analyses were carried out, reported to be carried out in the methods and/or results of the review. No: for reviews including patient-level covariates, AD analyses were reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol and/or carried out in the methods and/or results of the review. NA: no study-level covariates. We presumed AD analyses were planned/or done if there was no mention of IPD. We presumed AD analyses were carried out if there was no mention of IPD, and results from interaction analyses were reported or it was reported that interaction analyses were carried out.</p><p>⁽¹⁰⁾ Yes: justification was given for categorising each continuous covariate in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review. No: no justification was given for categorising each continuous covariate in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review. NA: no continuous covariates. We presumed a continuous covariate was categorised when categories were reported in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review, or when subgroup or sensitivity analysis was reported in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review.</p><p>⁽¹¹⁾ Yes: categories were reported for each categorised covariate in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review. No: categories were not reported for each categorised covariate in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review. NA: no categorical covariates or categorised continuous covariates.</p><p>⁽¹²⁾ Yes: justification was given for the categories chosen for each categorised covariate in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review. No: justification was not given for the categories chosen for each categorised covariate in the methods and/or results of the protocol and/or review. NA: no categorical covariates or categorised continuous covariates.</p><p>⁽¹³⁾ Yes: interaction analysis (i.e. stratification/subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, or meta-regression) was reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol. No: interaction analysis not reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol.</p><p>⁽¹⁴⁾ Yes: a methods to detect interaction (e.g. comparing the overlap of confidence intervals across subgroups, the test for subgroup differences, and/or I square statistic, based on the size and significance of regression coefficients in meta-regression and/or reduction in between trial variance) was reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol and, if interaction analyses were carried out, reported to be used in the methods of the review. No: methods to detect interactions not reported to be planned in the methods of the protocol, or if interaction analyses were carried out, not reported to be used in the methods of the review.</p><p>⁽¹⁵⁾ Yes: reported statistical results from the interaction analysis for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results of the review. No: did not report statistical results from the interaction analysis for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results of the review (e.g. non-statistical statement presented in the text). NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome. We presumed interaction analysis was carried out for a particular covariate only when results were presented in the review for that covariate or when the review specifically stated they carried out interaction analysis for that covariate for the outcome.</p><p>⁽¹⁶⁾ Yes: reported results from the method to detect interactions for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results of the review. No: did not report results from the method to detect interactions for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results of the review. NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome.</p><p>⁽¹⁷⁾ Yes: reported whether or not an interaction was detected for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results of the review. No: not reported whether or not an interaction was detected for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results of the review. NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome.</p><p>⁽¹⁸⁾ Yes: explicitly discussed the importance of the interaction or lack of interaction for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. No: did not explicitly discuss the importance of the interaction or lack of interaction for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome.</p><p>⁽¹⁹⁾ Yes: explicitly discussed the plausibility of the interaction or lack of interaction for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. No: did not explicitly discuss the plausibility of the interaction or lack of interaction for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome.</p><p>⁽²⁰⁾ Yes: explicitly discussed the possibility of confounding for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. No: did not explicitly discuss the possibility of confounding for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome.</p><p>⁽²¹⁾ Yes: explicitly discussed the covariate distribution for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. No: did not explicitly discus the covariate distribution for each analysed covariate (for the outcome) in the results and/or discussion of the review. NA: no interaction analyses carried out in the review for the outcome.</p><p>Summary of results of assessment of interactions.</p

Expert prior opinion before introduction of the MYCYC data regarding 6-month remission rates using treatment with CYC or MMF for children with PAN.

<p><b>Reprinted from [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0120981#pone.0120981.ref007" target="_blank">7</a>] under a CC BY license, with permission from the authors, original copyright 2014.</b> Prior opinion was that the most likely value for p_C was 0.7; 90% and 50% credibility intervals were (0.30, 0.91) and (0.50, 0.78), respectively. The effective sample size was 5 patients on CYC. The prior for p_M is derived from those for p_C and θ. It had mode = 0.65; 90% and 50% credibility intervals were (0.21, 0.90) and (0.41, 0.74), respectively.</p

Flow diagram illustrating the sequence of activities undertaken during the MYPAN prior elicitation meeting and the time allocated to each activity.

<p>Flow diagram illustrating the sequence of activities undertaken during the MYPAN prior elicitation meeting and the time allocated to each activity.</p

Comparison of the design of 2 randomised controlled trials for vasculitis: MYPAN versus MYCYC.

<p>^aMYPAN: Mycophenolate mofetil for childhood polyarteritis nodosa;</p><p>^bPAN: polyarteritis nodosa;</p><p>^cMYCYC: Mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclophosphamide for ANCA associated vasculitis;</p><p>^dANCA: anti neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies;</p><p>^eMMF: Mycophenolate mofetil;</p><p>^fCYC: cyclophosphamide;</p><p>^gPVAS: Paediatric Vasculitis Activity Score;</p><p>^hBVAS: Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score.</p><p>Comparison of the design of 2 randomised controlled trials for vasculitis: MYPAN versus MYCYC.</p

Influence of the MYCYC trial results on expert prior opinion regarding 6-month remission rates using treatment with CYC or MMF for children with PAN. Reprinted from [7] under a CC BY license, with permission from the authors, original copyright 2014.

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0120981#pone.0120981.g004" target="_blank">Fig 4A</a>): Influence of MYCYC results on prior opinion for p_C. The modified prior distribution for p_C after considering the MYCYC results had mode = 0.74; 90% and 50% credibility intervals were (0.51, 0.86) and (0.63, 0.78), respectively. This level of certainty is equivalent to what would be obtained from a clinical trial involving 17 patients treated with CYC (effective sample size). <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0120981#pone.0120981.g004" target="_blank">Fig 4B</a>): Influence of MYCYC results on prior opinion for p_M. The modified prior for p_M after considering the MYCYC results had mode = 0.71; 90% and 50% credibility intervals were (0.45, 0.85) and (0.59, 0.76), respectively. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0120981#pone.0120981.g004" target="_blank">Fig 4C</a>): Comparison of the final expert prior opinions for p_C and p_M incorporating the MYCYC data.</p