Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148351›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Trajectory analyses in insurance medicine studies: Examples and key methodological aspects and pitfalls.

Laura Serra, Kristin Farrants, Kristina Alexanderson, Mónica Ubalde, Tea Lallukka

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Physical functioning trajectories over statutory retirement: a finnish occupational cohort study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patterns of computed tomography utilisation in injury management: latent classes approach using linked administrative data in Western Australia.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laura SerraCenter for Research in Occupational Health (CiSAL), University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8835-6890
Kristin FarrantsDivision of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kristina AlexandersonDivision of Insurance Medicine, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mónica UbaldeCenter for Research in Occupational Health (CiSAL), University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Tea LallukkaDepartment of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrajectory analyses are being increasingly used in efforts to increase understanding about the heterogeneity in the development of different longitudinal outcomes such as sickness absence, use of medication, income, or other time varying outcomes. However, several methodological and interpretational challenges are related to using trajectory analyses. This methodological study aimed to compare results using two different types of software to identify trajectories and to discuss methodological aspects related to them and the interpretation of the results.

methodsGroup-based trajectory models (GBTM) and latent class growth models (LCGM) were fitted, using SAS and Mplus, respectively. The data for the examples were derived from a representative sample of Spanish workers in Catalonia, covered by the social security system (n = 166,192). Repeatedly measured sickness absence spells per trimester (n = 96,453) were from the Catalan Institute of Medical Evaluations. The analyses were stratified by sex and two birth cohorts (1949-1969 and 1970-1990).

resultsNeither of the software were superior to the other. Four groups were the optimal number of groups in both software, however, we detected differences in the starting values and shapes of the trajectories between the two software used, which allow for different conclusions when they are applied. We cover questions related to model fit, selecting the optimal number of trajectory groups, investigating covariates, how to interpret the results, and what are the key pitfalls and strengths of using these person-oriented methods.

conclusionsFuture studies could address further methodological aspects around these statistical techniques, to facilitate epidemiological and other research dealing with longitudinal study designs.

Indexed as

Birth CohortFemaleHumansLatent Class AnalysisLongitudinal StudiesMaleSick LeaveSocial SecuritySoftwareSpain

Identifiers

PMID35148351
PMCPMC8836370

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.