ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2023
Weighing risks and benefits in the presence of competing risks.
Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early acupuncture exposure and mortality in older adults with ischemic heart disease: A nationwide cohort study in Korea.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- A Framework for Thinking About the Potential Public Health Impact of Epidemiologic Research.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Impact of Increasing Midwifery-Led Prenatal Care on Birth Outcomes: An Application of the g-Formula and Target Trial Emulation.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose of Review: When competing events occur, there are two main options for handling them analytically that invoke different assumptions: 1) censor person-time after a competing event (which is akin to assuming they could be prevented) to calculate a conditional risk; or 2) do not censor them (allow them to occur) to calculate an unconditional risk. The choice of estimand has implications when weighing the relative frequency of a beneficial outcome and an adverse outcome in a risk-benefit analysis. Recent findings: We review the assumptions and interpretations underlying the two main approaches to analyzing competing risks. Using a popular metric in risk-benefit analyses, the Benefit-Risk Ratio, and a toy dataset, we demonstrated that conclusions about whether a treatment was more beneficial or more harmful can depend on whether one uses conditional or unconditional risks. Summary: We argue that unconditional risks are more relevant to decision-making about exposures with competing outcomes than conditional risks.
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.