Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28114895›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Comparison of methods for estimating the attributable risk in the context of survival analysis.

Malamine Gassama, Jacques Bénichou, Laureen Dartois, Anne C M Thiébaut

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Malamine GassamaUniversité Paris-Saclay, Biostatistics, Biomathematics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Infectious Diseases (B2PHI), Inserm, UVSQ, Institut Pasteur, 25 rue du Dr. Roux, Paris Cedex 15, 75724, France.
Jacques BénichouUniversity of Rouen, Inserm, U 1219, 1 rue de Germont, Rouen Cedex, 76031, France.
Laureen DartoisUniversité Paris-Saclay, CESP, Fac. de médecine - Univ. Paris-Sud, Fac. de médecine - UVSQ, INSERM, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif Cedex, 94805, France.
Anne C M ThiébautUniversité Paris-Saclay, Biostatistics, Biomathematics, Pharmacoepidemiology and Infectious Diseases (B2PHI), Inserm, UVSQ, Institut Pasteur, 25 rue du Dr. Roux, Paris Cedex 15, 75724, France. anne.thiebaut@inserm.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe attributable risk (AR) measures the proportion of disease cases that can be attributed to an exposure in the population. Several definitions and estimation methods have been proposed for survival data.

methodsUsing simulations, we compared four methods for estimating AR defined in terms of survival functions: two nonparametric methods based on Kaplan-Meier's estimator, one semiparametric based on Cox's model, and one parametric based on the piecewise constant hazards model, as well as one simpler method based on estimated exposure prevalence at baseline and Cox's model hazard ratio. We considered a fixed binary exposure with varying exposure probabilities and strengths of association, and generated event times from a proportional hazards model with constant or monotonic (decreasing or increasing) Weibull baseline hazard, as well as from a nonproportional hazards model. We simulated 1,000 independent samples of size 1,000 or 10,000. The methods were compared in terms of mean bias, mean estimated standard error, empirical standard deviation and 95% confidence interval coverage probability at four equally spaced time points.

resultsUnder proportional hazards, all five methods yielded unbiased results regardless of sample size. Nonparametric methods displayed greater variability than other approaches. All methods showed satisfactory coverage except for nonparametric methods at the end of follow-up for a sample size of 1,000 especially. With nonproportional hazards, nonparametric methods yielded similar results to those under proportional hazards, whereas semiparametric and parametric approaches that both relied on the proportional hazards assumption performed poorly. These methods were applied to estimate the AR of breast cancer due to menopausal hormone therapy in 38,359 women of the E3N cohort.

conclusionIn practice, our study suggests to use the semiparametric or parametric approaches to estimate AR as a function of time in cohort studies if the proportional hazards assumption appears appropriate.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, TheoreticalBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesComputer SimulationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHormone Replacement TherapyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimatePostmenopauseProportional Hazards ModelsReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesAttributable riskBreast cancerCohort studiesCox modelPiecewise constant hazards modelWeighted Kaplan-Meier estimator

Identifiers

PMID28114895
PMCPMC5259851

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.