ArticleThe Canadian journal of statistics = Revue canadienne de statistique2017
Estimating treatment effects in observational studies with both prevalent and incident cohorts.
Article in The Canadian journal of statistics = Revue canadienne de statistique, 2017. 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.
- Survival Modelling For Data From Combined Cohorts: Opening the Door to Meta Survival Analyses and Survival Analysis using Electronic Health Records.International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique · 2023Article
- The snapshot audit methodology: design, implementation and analysis of prospective observational cohort studies in surgery.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Review
- A risk set adjustment for proportional hazards modeling of combined cohort data.Journal of applied statistics · 2022Article
- Machine learning methods for developing precision treatment rules with observational data.Behaviour research and therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Registry databases are increasingly being used for comparative effectiveness research in cancer. Such databases reflect the real-world patient population and physician practice, and thus are natural sources for comparing multiple treatment scenarios and the associated long-term clinical outcomes. Registry databases usually include both incident and prevalent cohorts, which provide valuable complementary information for patients with more recent diagnoses in the incident cohort as well as patients with long-term follow-up data in the prevalent cohort. However, utilizing such data to derive valid inference poses two major challenges: the data from a prevalent cohort are not random samples of the target population, and there may be substantial differences in the baseline characteristics of patients between treatment arms, which influences the decisions about treatment selection in both cohorts. In this article, we extend propensity score methodology to observational studies that involve both prevalent and incident cohorts, and assess the effectiveness of radiation therapy in SEER-Medicare patients diagnosed with stage IV breast cancer. Specifically, we utilize the incident cohort to estimate the propensity for receiving radiation therapy, and then combine data from both the incident and prevalent cohorts to estimate the effect of radiation therapy by adjusting for the propensity scores in the model. We evaluate the proposed method with simulations. We demonstrate that the proposed propensity score method simultaneously removes sampling bias and selection bias under several assumptions.
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.