ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Comparison of methods for estimating the attributable risk in the context of survival analysis.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Population Attributable Fractions for Modifiable Risk Factors of Incident Dementia in Cognitively Normal and Mild Cognitively Impaired Older Adults: Data from Two Cohort Studies.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Population attributable risk of traditional, under-recognised and female-specific factors for heart failure in women.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2026Article
- Sociodemographic, health-related, and clinical characteristics and their associations with mortality among All of Us participants compared with the United States general population.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Implementation of a national AI technology program on cardiovascular outcomes and the health system.Nature medicine · 2025Observational
- Trends in Risk Factor Management Among Stroke Survivors in a Representative US Population.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- Ethnic differences in cardiovascular risk: examining differential exposure and susceptibility to risk factors.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- A deep learning approach for monitoring parietal-dominant Alzheimer's disease in World Trade Center responders at midlife.Brain communications · 2021Article
- Adjusted time-varying population attributable hazard in case-control studies.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- Population-level associations of achievement of targets for bone-mineral markers with survival in haemodialysis patients with mildly elevated intact-PTH levels: a case-cohort study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Risk Factors Associated With Atrioventricular Block.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Association of Cigarette Smoking and Alcohol Drinking With Risk of 12 Common Cancers Among Low-Income American Adults in the Southeastern United States.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.