Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35034622›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown.

Gilma Hernández-Herrera, David Moriña, Albert Navarro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Gilma Hernández-HerreraInstituto de Investigaciones Médicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
David MoriñaDepartment of Econometrics, Statistics and Applied Economics, Riskcenter-IREA, University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain. dmorina@ub.edu.
Albert NavarroPsychosocial Risks, Organization of Work and Health (POWAH), Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen dealing with recurrent events in observational studies it is common to include subjects who became at risk before follow-up. This phenomenon is known as left censoring, and simply ignoring these prior episodes can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. We aimed to propose a statistical method that performs well in this setting.

methodsOur proposal was based on the use of models with specific baseline hazards. In this, the number of prior episodes were imputed when unknown and stratified according to whether the subject had been at risk of presenting the event before t = 0. A frailty term was also used. Two formulations were used for this "Specific Hazard Frailty Model Imputed" based on the "counting process" and "gap time." Performance was then examined in different scenarios through a comprehensive simulation study.

resultsThe proposed method performed well even when the percentage of subjects at risk before follow-up was very high. Biases were often below 10% and coverages were around 95%, being somewhat conservative. The gap time approach performed better with constant baseline hazards, whereas the counting process performed better with non-constant baseline hazards.

conclusionsThe use of common baseline methods is not advised when knowledge of prior episodes experienced by a participant is lacking. The approach in this study performed acceptably in most scenarios in which it was evaluated and should be considered an alternative in this context. It has been made freely available to interested researchers as R package miRecSurv.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignBiasComputer SimulationEpidemiologic StudiesHumansProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID35034622
PMCPMC8761288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.