ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2024
Dependent censoring bias assessment using inverse probability of censoring weights: Type 2 diabetes mellitus risk in patients initiating bisoprolol versus other antihypertensives in a Clinical Practice Research Datalink cohort study.
Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dependent censoring involves a preferential attrition of a subgroup of interest; occurring in survival analysis, it may impact interpretation by introducing a selection bias. To assess the potential bias in a comparison of bisoprolol to other antihypertensives in terms of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence, inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) was used. It was further used to contextualize results obtained through competing risks analysis. Two estimands were considered to assess T2DM incidence while accounting for deviations from the initial antihypertensive monotherapy (DFM). A hypothetical estimand using IPCW, treating DFM as censoring, was interpreted together with a 'while-on-treatment' estimand, treating DFM as a competing risk. We illustrated our application with a cohort study based on Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) including 267,352 patients with newly diagnosed arterial hypertension between 2000 and 2017, initiating antihypertensive monotherapy among bisoprolol, other beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system drugs (ACEi/ARB), diuretics and calcium-channel blockers. A mild dependent censoring process was hypothesized, leading to slight overestimation of T2DM incidence. Although subject to some limitations, a nonsignificant trend toward an excess of risk associated with ACEi/ARB was yielded consistently by IPCW and competing risks analyses. Conversely, in comparisons of bisoprolol versus either diuretics, other beta-blockers or calcium channel blockers, no significant differences or critical dependent censoring impact were found. Concurrent use of complementary estimands allowed formulating a refined interpretation of our findings: though not significant, the trend toward an excess of T2DM risk associated with a ACEi/ARB monotherapy compared with bisoprolol is likely not originating only from the minor dependent censoring. Reassessing identical estimands in other cohorts would provide insights to corroborate or refute this result.
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.