Literature DB >> 14673938

Evaluation of Cox's model and logistic regression for matched case-control data with time-dependent covariates: a simulation study.

Karen Leffondré1, Michal Abrahamowicz, Jack Siemiatycki.   

Abstract

Case-control studies are typically analysed using the conventional logistic model, which does not directly account for changes in the covariate values over time. Yet, many exposures may vary over time. The most natural alternative to handle such exposures would be to use the Cox model with time-dependent covariates. However, its application to case-control data opens the question of how to manipulate the risk sets. Through a simulation study, we investigate how the accuracy of the estimates of Cox's model depends on the operational definition of risk sets and/or on some aspects of the time-varying exposure. We also assess the estimates obtained from conventional logistic regression. The lifetime experience of a hypothetical population is first generated, and a matched case-control study is then simulated from this population. We control the frequency, the age at initiation, and the total duration of exposure, as well as the strengths of their effects. All models considered include a fixed-in-time covariate and one or two time-dependent covariate(s): the indicator of current exposure and/or the exposure duration. Simulation results show that none of the models always performs well. The discrepancies between the odds ratios yielded by logistic regression and the 'true' hazard ratio depend on both the type of the covariate and the strength of its effect. In addition, it seems that logistic regression has difficulty separating the effects of inter-correlated time-dependent covariates. By contrast, each of the two versions of Cox's model systematically induces either a serious under-estimation or a moderate over-estimation bias. The magnitude of the latter bias is proportional to the true effect, suggesting that an improved manipulation of the risk sets may eliminate, or at least reduce, the bias. Copyright 2003 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14673938     DOI: 10.1002/sim.1674

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of Statistical Approaches for Dealing With Immortal Time Bias in Drug Effectiveness Studies.

Authors:  Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Paul Gustafson; John Petkau; Helen Tremlett
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Polygenic risk for prostate cancer: Decreasing relative risk with age but little impact on absolute risk.

Authors:  Daniel J Schaid; Jason P Sinnwell; Anthony Batzler; Shannon K McDonnell
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 11.043

3.  On the proportional hazards model for occupational and environmental case-control analyses.

Authors:  Héloïse Gauvin; Aude Lacourt; Karen Leffondré
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Evaluating mortality in intensive care units: contribution of competing risks analyses.

Authors:  Matthieu Resche-Rigon; Elie Azoulay; Sylvie Chevret
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Childhood hospitalisation with infection and cardiovascular disease in early-mid adulthood: a longitudinal population-based study.

Authors:  David P Burgner; Matthew N Cooper; Hannah C Moore; Fiona J Stanley; Peter L Thompson; Nicholas H de Klerk; Kim W Carter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Methodologic issues in the validation of putative biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in treatment evaluation for systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Matthew H Liang; Julia F Simard; Karen Costenbader; Benjamin T Dore; Michael Ward; Paul R Fortin; Gabor G Illei; Susan Manzi; Barbara Mittleman; Jill Buyon; Samardeep Gupta; Michal Abrahamowicz
Journal:  Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Fermented pork fat (Sa-um) and lifestyle risk factors as potential indicators for type 2 diabetes among the Mizo population, Northeast India.

Authors:  Freda Lalrohlui; Souvik Ghatak; John Zohmingthanga; Vanlal Hruaii; Nachimuthu Senthil Kumar
Journal:  J Health Popul Nutr       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.000

8.  Factors driving inequality in prostate cancer survival: a population based study.

Authors:  Richéal M Burns; Linda Sharp; Francis J Sullivan; Sandra E Deady; Frances J Drummond; Ciaran O Neill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Estimating time-varying exposure-outcome associations using case-control data: logistic and case-cohort analyses.

Authors:  Ruth H Keogh; Punam Mangtani; Laura Rodrigues; Patrick Nguipdop Djomo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 4.615

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.