Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012114›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Simulation shows undesirable results for competing risks analysis with time-dependent covariates for clinical outcomes.

Inga Poguntke, Martin Schumacher, Jan Beyersmann, Martin Wolkewitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Stroke incidence in heart failure and atrial fibrillation: a population-based retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Semi-parametric time-to-event modelling of lengths of hospital stays.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Statistical Considerations for Analyses of Time-To-Event Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials: Illustrations with CAR-T Immunotherapy Studies.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022
    Review
  10. Competing Risk Analysis of Time to Communal Residence for Elder Orphans.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Attributable Length of Stay, Mortality Risk, and Costs of Bacterial Health Care-Associated Infections in Australia: A Retrospective Case-cohort Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and acute rejection independently increase the risk of donor-specific antibodies after lung transplantation.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Inga PoguntkeInstitute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, Freiburg, 79104, Germany. poguntke@imbi.uni-freiburg.de.
Martin SchumacherInstitute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.
Jan BeyersmannInstitute of Statistics, Ulm University, Helmholtzstr. 20, Ulm, 89081, Germany.
Martin WolkewitzInstitute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, Freiburg, 79104, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe evaluate three methods for competing risks analysis with time-dependent covariates in comparison with the corresponding methods with time-independent covariates.

methodsWe used cause-specific hazard analysis and two summary approaches for in-hospital death: logistic regression and regression of the subdistribution hazard. We analysed real hospital data (n=1864) and considered pneumonia on admission / hospital-acquired pneumonia as time-independent / time-dependent covariates for the competing events 'discharge alive' and 'in-hospital death'. Several simulation studies with time-constant hazards were conducted.

resultsAll approaches capture the effect of time-independent covariates, whereas the approaches perform differently with time-dependent covariates. The subdistribution approach for time-dependent covariates detected effects in a simulated no-effects setting and provided counter-intuitive effects in other settings.

conclusionsThe extension of the Fine and Gray model to time-dependent covariates is in general not a helpful synthesis of the cause-specific hazards. Cause-specific hazard analysis and, for uncensored data, the odds ratio are capable of handling competing risks data with time-dependent covariates but the use of the subdistribution approach should be neglected until the problems can be resolved. For general right-censored data, cause-specific hazard analysis is the method of choice.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHospital MortalityModels, StatisticalComputer SimulationCross InfectionHospitalizationHumansPatient DischargePneumoniaProportional Hazards ModelsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurvival AnalysisTime FactorsFine and gray model(Internal) left-truncationSubdistribution approachTime-dependent covariates

Identifiers

PMID30012114
PMCPMC6048847

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.