4.6 Article

Limitation of Inverse Probability-of-Censoring Weights in Estimating Survival in the Presence of Strong Selection Bias

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 569-577

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq385

关键词

epidemiologic methods; selection bias; survival analysis

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [F31 DA022114]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [R03 AI071763]
  3. National Cancer Institute [UO1 AI 35042, 5 MO1 RR 00052, UO1 AI 35043, UO1 AI 35039, UO1 AI 35040, UO1 AI 35041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In time-to-event analyses, artificial censoring with correction for induced selection bias using inverse probability-of-censoring weights can be used to 1) examine the natural history of a disease after effective interventions are widely available, 2) correct bias due to noncompliance with fixed or dynamic treatment regimens, and 3) estimate survival in the presence of competing risks. Artificial censoring entails censoring participants when they meet a predefined study criterion, such as exposure to an intervention, failure to comply, or the occurrence of a competing outcome. Inverse probability-of-censoring weights use measured common predictors of the artificial censoring mechanism and the outcome of interest to determine what the survival experience of the artificially censored participants would be had they never been exposed to the intervention, complied with their treatment regimen, or not developed the competing outcome. Even if all common predictors are appropriately measured and taken into account, in the context of small sample size and strong selection bias, inverse probability-of-censoring weights could fail because of violations in assumptions necessary to correct selection bias. The authors used an example from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, 1984-2008, regarding estimation of long-term acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-free survival to demonstrate the impact of violations in necessary assumptions. Approaches to improve correction methods are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据