Abstract
Rigorous evaluation of surrogate endpoints is performed in a trial-level analysis in which the strength of the association between treatment effects on the clinical and surrogate endpoints is quantified across a collection of previously conducted trials. To reduce bias in measures of the performance of the surrogate, the statistical model must account for the sampling error in each trial's estimated treatment effects and their potential correlation. Unfortunately, these within-study correlations can be difficult to obtain, especially for meta-analysis of published trial results where individual patient data is not available. As such, these terms are frequently partially or completely missing in the analysis. We show that improper handling of these missing terms can meaningfully alter the perceived quality of the surrogate and we introduce novel strategies to handle the missingness.