↓ Skip to main content

Statistical methods for elimination of guarantee-time bias in cohort studies: a simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Statistical methods for elimination of guarantee-time bias in cohort studies: a simulation study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0405-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

In Sung Cho, Ye Rin Chae, Ji Hyeon Kim, Hae Rin Yoo, Suk Yong Jang, Gyu Ri Kim, Chung Mo Nam

Abstract

Aspirin has been considered to be beneficial in preventing cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Several pharmaco-epidemiology cohort studies have shown protective effects of aspirin on diseases using various statistical methods, with the Cox regression model being the most commonly used approach. However, there are some inherent limitations to the conventional Cox regression approach such as guarantee-time bias, resulting in an overestimation of the drug effect. To overcome such limitations, alternative approaches, such as the time-dependent Cox model and landmark methods have been proposed. This study aimed to compare the performance of three methods: Cox regression, time-dependent Cox model and landmark method with different landmark times in order to address the problem of guarantee-time bias. Through statistical modeling and simulation studies, the performance of the above three methods were assessed in terms of type I error, bias, power, and mean squared error (MSE). In addition, the three statistical approaches were applied to a real data example from the Korean National Health Insurance Database. Effect of cumulative rosiglitazone dose on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma was used as an example for illustration. In the simulated data, time-dependent Cox regression outperformed the landmark method in terms of bias and mean squared error but the type I error rates were similar. The results from real-data example showed the same patterns as the simulation findings. While both time-dependent Cox regression model and landmark analysis are useful in resolving the problem of guarantee-time bias, time-dependent Cox regression is the most appropriate method for analyzing cumulative dose effects in pharmaco-epidemiological studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Computer Science 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Mathematics 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2020.
All research outputs
#18,576,001
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,750
of 2,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,396
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#40
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.