Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31155642›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019

Counterpoint: Keeping the Demons at Bay When Handling Time-Varying Exposures-Beyond Avoiding Immortal Person-Time.

Jessie K Edwards, Phyo T Htoo, Til Stürmer

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jessie K EdwardsDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Phyo T HtooDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Til StürmerDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Funding

Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
Propensity scores and preventive drug use in the elderlyR01AG056479 · NIA · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Til Sturmer · 2017 to 2026
$5.0M
Comparative effectiveness of tailored HIV treatment plans and mortalityK01AI125087 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI EDWARDS, JESSIE · 2017 to 2021
$586k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489NIAID NIH HHS K01 AI125087NIA NIH HHS R01 AG056479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential for immortal time bias is pervasive in epidemiologic studies with left truncation or time-varying exposures. Unlike other biases in epidemiologic research (e.g., measurement bias, confounding due to unmeasured factors, and selection based on unmeasured predictors of the outcome), immortal time bias can and should be avoided by the correct assignment of person-time during follow up. However, even when handing person-time correctly, allowing late entry into a study or into an exposure group can open the door to more insidious sources of bias, some of which we explore here. Clear articulation of the study question, including the treatment plans of interest, can provide navigation around these sources of bias and elucidate the assumptions needed for inference given the available data. Here, we use simulated data to illustrate the assumptions required under various approaches to estimate the effect of a time-varying treatment and describe how these assumptions relate to the assumptions necessary to estimate single sample rates and risks in settings with censoring and truncation.

Indexed as

BiasEpidemiologic StudiesTime Factorscausalityepidemiologic methodsrisksurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID31155642
PMCPMC7415259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.