Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31155675›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2019

Point: Immortal Time Bias-What Are the Determinants of Its Magnitude?

Barbara N Harding, Noel S Weiss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparing broad and narrow phenotype algorithms: differences in performance characteristics and immortal time incurred.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Barbara N HardingDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Noel S WeissDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In cohort studies, "immortal time" bias refers to a portion of time during which events cannot occur for a particular group of participants. Typically, immortal time bias occurs when: 1) Exposure can be initiated after follow-up of cohort members has begun; and 2) analytically, the preexposure experience is combined with that which takes place following exposure, rather than (correctly) as part of the experience of nonexposed individuals. Using the example of a cohort study of mortality in relation to receipt of cataract surgery, we sought to describe those study design and population characteristics that influence the magnitude of immortal time bias, so as to aid readers in gauging its impact on published research findings. These characteristics include the mean interval between cohort entry and when exposure criteria are met, the proportion of exposed study participants, and the length of study follow-up.

Indexed as

BiasCohort StudiesEpidemiologic MethodsTime FactorsCataract ExtractionFemaleHumansbiascohort studiesepidemiologic methodsimmortal time biaspharmacoepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID31155675

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.