↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of risks of cardiovascular events in the elderly using standard survival analysis and multiple-events and recurrent-events methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Comparison of risks of cardiovascular events in the elderly using standard survival analysis and multiple-events and recurrent-events methods
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0004-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward H Ip, Achmad Efendi, Geert Molenberghs, Alain G Bertoni

Abstract

Epidemiological studies about cardiovascular diseases often rely on methods based on time-to-first-event for data analysis. Without taking into account multiple event-types and the recurrency of a specific cardiovascular event, this approach may underestimate the overall cardiovascular burden of some risk factors, if that is the goal of the study. In this study we compare four different statistical approaches, all based on the Weibull distribution family of survival model, in analyzing cardiovascular risk factors. We use data from the Cardiovascular Health Study as illustration. The four models respectively are time-to-first-event only, recurrent-events only, multiple-event-types only, and joint recurrent and multiple-event-type models. Although the four models produce consistent results regarding the significance of the risk factors, the magnitude of the hazard ratios and their confidence intervals are different. The joint model produces hazard ratios that are substantially higher than the time-to-first-event model especially for the risk factors of smoking and diabetes. Our findings suggest that for people with diabetes and are currently smoking, the overall cardiovascular burden of these risk factors would be substantially higher than that estimated using time-to-first-event method.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 12 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%