ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2015
Invited commentary: Estimating population impact in the presence of competing events.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accounting for Competing Events When Evaluating Long-Term Outcomes in Survivors of Critical Illness.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Using Propensity Scores for Causal Inference: Pitfalls and Tips.Journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Estimating Counterfactual Risk Under Hypothetical Interventions in the Presence of Competing Events: Crystalline Silica Exposure and Mortality From 2 Causes of Death.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Occupational Diesel Exposure, Duration of Employment, and Lung Cancer: An Application of the Parametric G-Formula.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The formal approach in the field of causal inference has enabled epidemiologists to clarify several complications that arise when estimating the effect of an intervention on a health outcome of interest. When the outcome is a failure time or longitudinal process, researchers must often deal with competing events. In this issue of the Journal, Picciotto et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(8):563-570) use structural nested failure time models to assess potential population effects of hypothetical interventions and censor competing events. In the present commentary, we discuss 2 interpretations that result from treating competing events as censored observations and how they relate to measures of public health impact. We also comment on 2 alternative approaches for handling competing events: an inverse probability weighting estimator of the survivor average causal effect and the parametric g-formula, which can be used to estimate a functional of the subdistribution of the event of interest. We argue that careful consideration of the tradeoff between the interpretation of the parameters from each approach and the assumptions required to estimate these parameters should guide researchers on the various ways to handle competing events in epidemiologic research.
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.