Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37234936›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2023

Evaluation of instrumental variable method using Cox proportional hazard model in epidemiological studies.

Md Jamal Uddin, Tanvir Ahammed, A Z M Hasan Kabir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Md Jamal UddinDepartment of Statistics, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh.
Tanvir AhammedDepartment of Statistics, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet 3114, Bangladesh.
A Z M Hasan KabirDepartment of Mathematics, Comilla Victoria Government College, Cumilla, Bangladesh.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The instrumental variable (IV) method with a Cox proportional hazard (PH) model has been used to evaluate treatment effects in epidemiological studies involving survival data. The effectiveness of the IV methods in these circumstances has yet to be fully understood, though. The study aimed to evaluate the performance of IV methods using a Cox model. We evaluated the validity of treatment effects estimated by two-stage IV models using simulated scenarios with varying confounder strengths and baseline hazards. Our simulation demonstrated that when observed confounders were not taken into account in the IV models, and the confounder strength was moderate, the treatment effects based on the two-stage IV models were similar to the true value. However, the effect estimates diverged from the true value when observed confounders were taken into account in the IV models. In the case of a null treatment effect (i.e., hazard ratio=1), the estimates from the unadjusted and adjusted IV models (only two-stage) were close to the true value. The implication of our study findings is that the treatment effects obtained through IV analyses using the Cox PH model remain valid if the estimates are reported from unadjusted IV models with moderate confounding effects or if the treatment does not impact the outcome.•For every simulation, we utilized a sample size of 10,000 and performed 1,000 replications.•The true treatment effects (HR) of 3, 2, and 1 (null effect) were evaluated.•The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated as the range between the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of the 1000 estimates.

Indexed as

BiasCausal ResearchConfounderCox proportional hazard modelInstrumental variable analysisSimulation studiesSurvival data

Identifiers

PMID37234936
PMCPMC10205781

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.