ArticleWorld journal of methodology2015
Methodological challenges to control for immortal time bias in addressing drug effects in type 2 diabetes.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2015. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are multiple biases in using observational studies to examine treatment effects such as those from prevalent drug users, immortal time and drug indications. We used renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and statins as reference drugs with proven efficacies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examined their effectiveness in the prospective Hong Kong Diabetes Registry using adjustment methods proposed in the literature. Using time-dependent exposures to drug treatments yielded greatly inflated hazard ratios (HR) regarding the treatment effects of these drugs for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 2 diabetes. These errors were probably due to changing indications to use these drugs during follow up periods, especially at the time of drug commencement making time-dependent analysis extremely problematic. Using time-fixed analysis with exclusion of immortal time and adjustment for confounders at baseline and/or during follow-up periods, the HR of RAS inhibitors for CVD was comparable to that in RCT. The result supported the use of the Registry for performing pharmacoepidemiological analysis which revealed an attenuated low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol related cancer risk with RAS inhibitors. On the other hand, time-fixed analysis with including immortal time and adjustment for confounders at baseline and/or during follow-up periods, the HR of statins for CVD was similar to that in the RCT. Our results highlight the complexity and difficulty in removing these biases. We call for validations of the methods to cope with immortal time and drug use indications before applying them to particular research questions, so to avoid making erroneous conclusions.
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.