Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26927506›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016

Mechanisms and mediation in survival analysis: towards an integrated analytical framework.

Jonathan Pratschke, Trutz Haase, Harry Comber, Linda Sharp, Marianna de Camargo Cancela, Howard Johnson

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Incorporating nonlinearity into mediation analyses.BMC medical research methodology · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jonathan PratschkeDepartment of Economics and Statistics, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, Fisciano, 84084, Italy. jpratschke@unisa.it.
Trutz HaaseSocial & Economic Consultant, Templeogue Road, Terenure, Dublin, 6W, Ireland.
Harry ComberNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Cork, Ireland.
Linda SharpInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, The Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Marianna de Camargo CancelaNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Kinsale Road, Cork, Ireland.
Howard JohnsonHealth Intelligence Unit, Health Service Executive, Red Brick House, Stewarts Hospital Campus, Palmerstown, Dublin, 20, Ireland.
National Cancer Registry · IEHealth Service Executive · IENewcastle University · GBUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA wide-ranging debate has taken place in recent years on mediation analysis and causal modelling, raising profound theoretical, philosophical and methodological questions. The authors build on the results of these discussions to work towards an integrated approach to the analysis of research questions that situate survival outcomes in relation to complex causal pathways with multiple mediators. The background to this contribution is the increasingly urgent need for policy-relevant research on the nature of inequalities in health and healthcare.

methodsThe authors begin by summarising debates on causal inference, mediated effects and statistical models, showing that these three strands of research have powerful synergies. They review a range of approaches which seek to extend existing survival models to obtain valid estimates of mediation effects. They then argue for an alternative strategy, which involves integrating survival outcomes within Structural Equation Models via the discrete-time survival model. This approach can provide an integrated framework for studying mediation effects in relation to survival outcomes, an issue of great relevance in applied health research. The authors provide an example of how these techniques can be used to explore whether the social class position of patients has a significant indirect effect on the hazard of death from colon cancer.

resultsThe results suggest that the indirect effects of social class on survival are substantial and negative (-0.23 overall). In addition to the substantial direct effect of this variable (-0.60), its indirect effects account for more than one quarter of the total effect. The two main pathways for this indirect effect, via emergency admission (-0.12), on the one hand, and hospital caseload, on the other, (-0.10) are of similar size.

conclusionsThe discrete-time survival model provides an attractive way of integrating time-to-event data within the field of Structural Equation Modelling. The authors demonstrate the efficacy of this approach in identifying complex causal pathways that mediate the effects of a socio-economic baseline covariate on the hazard of death from colon cancer. The results show that this approach has the potential to shed light on a class of research questions which is of particular relevance in health research.

Indexed as

Cause of DeathModels, StatisticalSurvival AnalysisAgedAge FactorsColonic NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIntegrated Advanced Information Management SystemsMaleMiddle AgedNegotiatingProportional Hazards ModelsSensitivity and SpecificitySex Factors

Identifiers

PMID26927506
PMCPMC4772586
OpenAlexW2288367149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.