ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019
Counterpoint: Keeping the Demons at Bay When Handling Time-Varying Exposures-Beyond Avoiding Immortal Person-Time.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vaccine safety for individuals receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: A narrative review of current literature and recommendations for future research.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular outcomes of empagliflozin-GLP-1RA combination therapy in type 2 diabetes: EMPRISE study.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Older Patients in Routine Clinical Care With or Without History of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases or Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.