ArticleStat (International Statistical Institute)2017
Bias and estimation under misspecification of the risk period in self-controlled case series studies.
Article in Stat (International Statistical Institute), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Grace periods and exposure misclassification in self-controlled case-series studies of drug-drug interactions.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Association between Influenza Vaccine Administration and Primary Care Consultations for Respiratory Infections: Sentinel Network Study of Five Seasons (2014/2015-2018/2019) in the UK.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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
Abstract
The self-controlled case series (SCCS) method is useful for estimating the relative incidence (RI) of acute events, such as adverse events (AEs) during a specified risk period following an exposure (e.g., 6-week period after vaccinations or 30-day period after infection-related hospitalizations). In practice, the "optimal" risk period is unknown and must be specified. To date, two approaches are available to guide the specification of the risk period. Both methods do not fully utilize the nature of the bias due to misspecification, which to date has not been characterized. Thus, we elucidate the bias of SCCS estimate of the RI when the risk period is misspecified. We then propose a novel method that more effectively estimates the optimal risk period and the associated RI of AEs. The new method incorporates information on the functional form of the bias. Efficacy of the proposed approach is illustrated with substantial reduction in bias and variance in simulation studies. The proposed method is illustrated with two SCCS studies to determine the (1) risk of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children and (2) risk of cardiovascular events after infection-related hospitalizations in older patients on dialysis.
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.