ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2020
An empirical comparison of time-to-event models to analyse a composite outcome in the presence of death as a competing risk.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCompeting risks arise when subjects are exposed to multiple mutually exclusive failure events, and the occurrence of one failure hinders the occurrence of other failure events. In the presence of competing risks, it is important to use methods accounting for competing events because failure to account for these events might result in misleading inferences. METHODS AND
objectiveUsing data from a multisite retrospective observational longitudinal study done in Ethiopia, we performed sensitivity analyses using Fine-Gray model, Cause-specific Cox (Cox-CSH) model, Cause-specific Accelerated Failure Time (CS-AFT) model, accounting for death as a competing risk to determine baseline covariates that are associated with a composite of unfavourable retention in care outcomes in people living with Human Immune Virus who were on both Isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) and antiretroviral therapy (ART). Non-cause specific (non-CSH) model that does not account for competing risk was also performed. The composite outcome comprises of loss to follow-up, stopped treatment and death. Age, World Health Organisation (WHO) stage, gender, and CD4 count were the considered baseline covariates.
resultsWe included 3578 patients in our analysis. WHO stage III-or-IV was significantly associated with the composite of unfavourable outcomes, Sub-hazard ratio (SHR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.04-1.65 for the sub-distribution hazard model, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.31, 95% CI:1.05-1.65, for the Cox-CSH model, and HR = 0.81, 95% CI:0.69-0.96, for the CS-AFT model. Gender and WHO stage were found to be significantly associated with the composite of unfavourable outcomes, HR = 1.56, 95% CI:1.27-1.90, HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.06-1.55 for males and WHO stage III-or-IV, respectively for the non-CSH model.
conclusionsResults show that WHO stage III-or-IV is significantly associated with unfavourable outcomes. The results from competing risk models were consistent. However, results obtained from the non-CSH model were inconsistent with those obtained from competing risk analysis models.
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.