ArticleObservational studies2016
Cohort restriction based on prior enrollment: Examining potential biases in estimating cancer and mortality risk.
Article in Observational studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnoses and HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Adherence and Continuation: a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnoses Among Individuals Who Take HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Emergency Department Use in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Early Survivors from 2006 to 2020.Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2024Article
- ANALYSES OF PREVENTIVE CARE MEASURES WITH INCOMPLETE HISTORICAL DATA IN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS: AN EXAMPLE FROM COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING.The annals of applied statistics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic health records and administrative databases provide rich, longitudinal data for health-related research. These data cover large, diverse populations creating excellent research opportunities, but have limitations. In particular, information is available only for individuals who are enrolled in a particular health system; thus, studies often exclude individual's with short enrollment history. Such cohort restriction may cause selection bias in absolute risk estimates for the full enrollee population. We use hazard ratios (HRs) to estimate the association between length of prior enrollment and cancer and all-cause mortality risk. HRs different from one indicate restricted cohorts would produce biased risk estimates for the full enrollee population. Our study sample included 170,708 enrollees of a Western Washington healthcare delivery system. Unadjusted models found individuals with 10 or more years of prior enrollment had higher risk of cancer and death compared to those with less than 5 years prior enrollment (HRs ranged from 1.29 - 3.01). Age- and sex-adjusted models accounted for much of this difference (HRs: 0.93 - 1.24). Models adjusting for additional covariates had similar results (HRs: 0.91 - 1.14). After evaluating potential selection bias, we conclude that, in this setting, age- and sex-standardizing risk estimates can remove most of the bias due to lengthy, prior-enrollment cohort restrictions. Before generalizing estimates based on a selected sample of patients meeting prior enrollment criteria, researchers should assess the potential for selection bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28530002PMC5435370What 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.