ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
A new method for dealing with collider bias in the PWP model for recurrent events in randomized controlled trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundEvaluating recurrent events within a time-to-event analysis framework effectively utilizes all relevant information to address the clinical question of interest fully and has certain advantages in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) model disrupts the randomness of the risk set for subsequent recurrent events other than the first and consequently introduces bias in estimating effects. This study aimed to propose a weighted PWP model, evaluate its statistical performance, and assess the potential consequences of using common practices when each recurrence has different baseline hazard functions.
methodsWe proposed adjusting the estimate of treatment effect through a weighting strategy that constructed a virtual population balanced between groups in each risk set. A simulation study was carried out. The characteristic of the simulation data was the baseline hazard changed with the number of events. The proposed weighted PWP model was compared with current methods, including Cox for time-to-first-event, Poisson, negative binomial (NB), Andersen-Gill (AG), Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying (LWYY), and PWP models. Model performance was evaluated by bias, type I error rates, and statistical power. All models were applied to a real case from a randomization trial of Chemoprophylaxis treatment for Recurrent Stage I Bladder Tumors.
resultsThe results showed that the proposed weighted PWP model performed best with the lowest bias and highest statistical power. However, other models, including the Cox for time-to-first-event, Poisson, NB, AG, LWYY, and PWP models, all showed different degrees of bias and inflated type I error rates or low statistical power in the case of the baseline hazard changed with the number of events. Covariate adjustment via outcome regression can lead to inflated type I error rates. When the number of recurrent events was restricted, all weighting strategies yielded stable and nearly consistent results.
conclusionsRecurrent event data should be analyzed with caution. The proposed methods may be generalized to model recurrent events. Our findings serve as an important clarification of how to deal with collider bias in the PWP model in RCTs.
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.