Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34519082›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2021

An approximate quasi-likelihood approach for error-prone failure time outcomes and exposures.

Lillian A Boe, Lesley F Tinker, Pamela A Shaw

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lillian A BoeDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6279-9987
Lesley F TinkerDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Pamela A ShawDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1883-8410
University of Pennsylvania · USCape Town HVTN Immunology Laboratory / Hutchinson Centre Research Institute of South Africa · ZA

Funding

Nutrition and Physical Activity Assessment Study (NPAAS)R01CA119171 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Marian L Neuhouser · 2006 to 2026
$14.3M
Statistical methods and designs for correlated outcome and covariate errors in studies of HIV/AIDSR37AI131771 · NIAID · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Pamela A Shaw, Bryan Earl Shepherd · 2023 to 2026
$3.4M
Statistical methods for correlated outcome and covariate errors in studies of HIV/AIDSR01AI131771 · NIAID · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI SHAW, PAMELA A, SHEPHERD, BRYAN EARL · 2018 to 2022
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA119171NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600001CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600002CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600003CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600004CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201600018CNIAID NIH HHS R01 AI131771NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI131771NIH HHS R01 AI131771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement error arises commonly in clinical research settings that rely on data from electronic health records or large observational cohorts. In particular, self-reported outcomes are typical in cohort studies for chronic diseases such as diabetes in order to avoid the burden of expensive diagnostic tests. Dietary intake, which is also commonly collected by self-report and subject to measurement error, is a major factor linked to diabetes and other chronic diseases. These errors can bias exposure-disease associations that ultimately can mislead clinical decision-making. We have extended an existing semiparametric likelihood-based method for handling error-prone, discrete failure time outcomes to also address covariate error. We conduct an extensive numerical study to compare the proposed method to the naive approach that ignores measurement error in terms of bias and efficiency in the estimation of the regression parameter of interest. In all settings considered, the proposed method showed minimal bias and maintained coverage probability, thus outperforming the naive analysis which showed extreme bias and low coverage. This method is applied to data from the Women's Health Initiative to assess the association between energy and protein intake and the risk of incident diabetes mellitus. Our results show that correcting for errors in both the self-reported outcome and dietary exposures leads to considerably different hazard ratio estimates than those from analyses that ignore measurement error, which demonstrates the importance of correcting for both outcome and covariate error.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLikelihood FunctionsProportional Hazards ModelsCox modelmeasurement errormisclassificationproportional hazardsregression calibrationsurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID34519082
PMCPMC8963256
OpenAlexW3014620694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.