Papers › Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) --...
Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) -- estimation of adverse event risks
Regina Stegherr, Claudia Schmoor, Jan Beyersmann, Kaspar Rufibach, Valentine Jehl, Andreas Brückner, Lewin Eisele, Thomas Künzel, Katrin Kupas, Frank Langer, Friedhelm Leverkus, Anja Loos, Christiane Norenberg, Florian Voss, Tim Friede
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse event (AE) data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). Although statistical methodologies have advanced, in AE analyses often the incidence proportion, the incidence density, or a non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimator (KME) are used, which either ignore censoring or CEs. In an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organisations, these potential sources of bias are investigated. The main aim is to compare the estimators that are typically used in AE analysis to the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) as the gold-standard. Here, one-sample findings are reported, while a companion paper considers consequences when comparing treatment groups. Estimators are compared with descriptive statistics, graphical displays and with a random effects meta-analysis. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. Comparisons are conducted at the maximum follow-up time and at earlier evaluation time points. CEs definition does not only include death before AE but also end of follow-up for AEs due to events possibly related to the disease course or the treatment. Ten sponsor organisations provided 17 trials including 186 types of AEs. The one minus KME was on average about 1.2-fold larger than the AJE. Leading forces influencing bias were the amount of censoring and of CEs. As a consequence, the average bias using the incidence proportion was less than 5%. Assuming constant hazards using incidence densities was hardly an issue provided that CEs were accounted for. There is a need to improve the guidelines of reporting risks of AEs so that the KME and the incidence proportion are replaced by the AJE with an appropriate definition of CEs.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections