Trial reportPloS one2011
Antiretroviral treatment cohort analysis using time-updated CD4 counts: assessment of bias with different analytic methods.
Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Viral Suppression With Lower AIDS-Defining and Non-AIDS-Defining Cancer Incidence in HIV-Infected Veterans: A Prospective Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurvival analysis using time-updated CD4+ counts during antiretroviral therapy is frequently employed to determine risk of clinical events. The time-point when the CD4+ count is assumed to change potentially biases effect estimates but methods used to estimate this are infrequently reported.
methodsThis study examined the effect of three different estimation methods: assuming i) a constant CD4+ count from date of measurement until the date of next measurement, ii) a constant CD4+ count from the midpoint of the preceding interval until the midpoint of the subsequent interval and iii) a linear interpolation between consecutive CD4+ measurements to provide additional midpoint measurements. Person-time, tuberculosis rates and hazard ratios by CD4+ stratum were compared using all available CD4+ counts (measurement frequency 1-3 months) and 6 monthly measurements from a clinical cohort. Simulated data were used to compare the extent of bias introduced by these methods.
resultsThe midpoint method gave the closest fit to person-time spent with low CD4+ counts and for hazard ratios for outcomes both in the clinical dataset and the simulated data.
conclusionThe midpoint method presents a simple option to reduce bias in time-updated CD4+ analysis, particularly at low CD4 cell counts and rapidly increasing counts after ART initiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.