ReviewClinical epidemiology2026
An Introduction to Competing Risks in Epidemiology.
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tyrosine kinase inhibitor use and risk of neurodegenerative disease: A Swedish population-based cohort study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in patients with chronic kidney disease: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Empagliflozin Versus Dapagliflozin and Urogenital Adverse Events in Type 2 Diabetes: A Target Trial Emulation.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and the risk of delirium - a Danish nationwide register-based cohort study.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- An Introduction to Competing Risks in Epidemiology [Response to Letter].Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- An Introduction to Competing Risks in Epidemiology [Letter].Clinical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Competing risks arise when people are at risk of multiple mutually exclusive events, such that the occurrence of one event alters the probability of others. In research, ignoring competing risks can lead to biased estimates. We outline key approaches for analyzing competing risk data, focusing on their assumptions, interpretations, and epidemiological and clinical relevance. The Aalen-Johansen estimator, a non-parametric method for estimating the cumulative incidence function, provides an alternative to the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator when competing events are present. The cause-specific hazard model estimates the instantaneous risk of a specific event type, treating competing events as censored, and is used for etiologic research. The Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model directly models the cumulative incidence function, thus offering a clinically interpretable measure of absolute risk. We also discuss the use of composite endpoints, which combine several event types to increase statistical power, and highlight their limitations in clinical interpretation. By comparing these methods and illustrating their applications through analyses of the association between venous thromboembolism and arterial events, this review aims to guide researchers, particularly junior researchers, in selecting appropriate strategies for valid and meaningful analysis of competing risks in clinical and epidemiological studies.
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.