Key result
This primer provides detailed information on interpreting common survival analyses, competing risks, and alternatives to conventional methods when proportional hazards assumptions are not met.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Primer
Supports precise survival analysis in extended cardiovascular follow-up; extends methodological guidance beyond standard Kaplan-Meier and Cox models.
Investigation of survival during the follow-up period is common in cardiovascular research and has intrinsic issues that require precise knowledge, such as survival or censoring. Besides, as the follow-up period lengthens and events other than mortality are studied, the analysis becomes more complex, so Kaplan-Meier analyses or Cox models are not always sufficient. In this primer, we provide the reader with detailed information on the interpretation of the most common survival analyses and delve into methods to analyse competing risks or alternatives to the conventional methods when the proportional hazards assumption is not met.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carnero et al. (2024) reported a review. This primer provides detailed information on interpreting common survival analyses, competing risks, and alternatives to conventional methods when proportional hazards assumptions are not met.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: