ArticleStatistical methods in medical research2022
Methods of analysis for survival outcomes with time-updated mediators, with application to longitudinal disease registry data.
Article in Statistical methods in medical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mediation analysis in longitudinal study with high-dimensional methylation mediators.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Mediation of the total effect of cystic fibrosis-related diabetes on mortality: A UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry cohort study.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Mediation analysis is a useful tool to illuminate the mechanisms through which an exposure affects an outcome but statistical challenges exist with time-to-event outcomes and longitudinal observational data. Natural direct and indirect effects cannot be identified when there are exposure-induced confounders of the mediator-outcome relationship. Previous measurements of a repeatedly-measured mediator may themselves confound the relationship between the mediator and the outcome. To overcome these obstacles, two recent methods have been proposed, one based on path-specific effects and one based on an additive hazards model and the concept of exposure splitting. We investigate these techniques, focusing on their application to observational datasets. We apply both methods to an analysis of the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry dataset to identify how much of the relationship between onset of cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and subsequent survival acts through pulmonary function. Statistical properties of the methods are investigated using simulation. Both methods produce unbiased estimates of indirect and direct effects in scenarios consistent with their stated assumptions but, if the data are measured infrequently, estimates may be biased. Findings are used to highlight considerations in the interpretation of the observational data analysis.
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.