English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Trial design and conduct is informed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MAs). For time-to-event outcomes, they are typically based on hazard ratios (HRs). Ideally, these are calculated from individual patient data (IPD). Alternatively, they can be extracted from published aggregate data (AD) or estimated from other statistics or from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. As reporting and the reliability of each estimation method is likely variable, we investigate how HRs from AD and IPD compare.

Assessing and improving the reliability of meta-analyses of hazard ratios derived from published time-to-event data