Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27347436›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Sunnyvale, Calif.)2015

The Effect of Ignoring Statistical Interactions in Regression Analyses Conducted in Epidemiologic Studies: An Example with Survival Analysis Using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model.

K P Vatcheva, M Lee, J B McCormick, M H Rahbar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Sunnyvale, Calif.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pseudo-value regression trees.Lifetime data analysis · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

K P VatchevaDivision of Epidemiology, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, School of Public Health, Brownsville Campus, Brownsville, TX, USA.
M LeeDivision of Clinical and Translational Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School; The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Biostatistics/Epidemiology/Research Design (BERD) Core, Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS), The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
J B McCormickDivision of Epidemiology, University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, School of Public Health, Brownsville Campus, Brownsville, TX, USA.
M H RahbarDepartment of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences (EHGES), University of Texas School of Public Health at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Division of Clinical and Translational Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School; The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Biostatistics/Epidemiology/Research Design (BERD) Core, Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS), The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS)UL1TR000371 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo demonstrate the adverse impact of ignoring statistical interactions in regression models used in epidemiologic studies. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingBased on different scenarios that involved known values for coefficient of the interaction term in Cox regression models we generated 1000 samples of size 600 each. The simulated samples and a real life data set from the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort were used to evaluate the effect of ignoring statistical interactions in these models.

resultsCompared to correctly specified Cox regression models with interaction terms, misspecified models without interaction terms resulted in up to 8.95 fold bias in estimated regression coefficients. Whereas when data were generated from a perfect additive Cox proportional hazards regression model the inclusion of the interaction between the two covariates resulted in only 2% estimated bias in main effect regression coefficients estimates, but did not alter the main findings of no significant interactions.

conclusionsWhen the effects are synergic, the failure to account for an interaction effect could lead to bias and misinterpretation of the results, and in some instances to incorrect policy decisions. Best practices in regression analysis must include identification of interactions, including for analysis of data from epidemiologic studies.

Indexed as

Cox proportional hazards modelEffect modificationRegression analysisSimulationStatistical interactionType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID27347436
PMCPMC4918637

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.