ArticleMedicine2015
Effects of Referral Bias on Estimates of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia Progression and Regression Rates in a 3-State Markov Model.
Article in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Predictors and Outcomes of Invasive Anal Cancer for People With HIV in an Inception Cohort.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024Article
- Disparities in the Clinical Evolution of Anal Neoplasia in an HIV-Infected Cohort.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The study aim is to compare anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) progression and regression rates in a cytology inception cohort to estimates based on the subcohort referred for ≥1 high-resolution anoscopies (HRAs).A cytology-based retrospective cohort was assembled including the anal cytology histories and invasive anal cancer (IAC) outcomes of all HIV-infected adults under care between 2001 and 2012. A 3-state Markov model (<HSIL↔HSIL→IAC) was estimated separately for all patients and for the subcohort undergoing ≥ 1 HRAs with biopsy. Cytology was adjusted for misclassification. State transition rates (per person-year) and covariate hazard ratios were estimated using the R package msm.Of 2804 eligible patients in the inception cohort, 629 (22%) were in the HRA subcohort and 2175 (78%) in the non-HRA subcohort. Patients in the HRA subcohort were more likely to have baseline CD4<350, viral load >400, and to have HSIL at baseline and thereafter. They also had more anal cytology examinations (median 6 vs 3) and longer follow-up (median 5.5 vs 3.6 years). State transition rates were overestimated in the HRA subcohort relative to inception cohort, but the degree of discordance varied by transition: for <HSIL to HSIL (0.44 vs 0.04); for HSIL to <HSIL (0.56 vs 0.17); and for HSIL to IAC (0.014 vs 0.011). Beneficial covariate effects on the <HSIL to HSIL transition were concordant (P < 0.05) for time-updated HIV viral load, CD4 count, and antiretroviral therapy. The observed effects of HRA-triage bias may be relevant to estimates of AIN state transitions from other cohorts subject to referral bias.
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.