Literature DB >> 16217859

The importance of varying the event generation process in simulation studies of statistical methods for recurrent events.

Chris Metcalfe1, Simon G Thompson.   

Abstract

Statistical methods for the analysis of recurrent events are often evaluated in simulation studies. A factor rarely varied in such studies is the underlying event generation process. If the relative performance of statistical methods differs across generation processes, then studies based upon one process may mislead. This paper describes the simulation of recurrent events data using four models of the generation process: Poisson, mixed Poisson, autoregressive, and Weibull. For each model four commonly used statistical methods for the analysis of recurrent events (Cox's proportional hazards method, the Andersen-Gill method, negative binomial regression, the Prentice-Williams-Peterson method) were applied to 200 simulated data sets, and the mean estimates, standard errors, and confidence intervals obtained. All methods performed well for the Poisson process. Otherwise, negative binomial regression only performed well for the mixed Poisson process, as did the Andersen-Gill method with a robust estimate of the standard error. The Prentice-Williams-Peterson method performed well only for the autoregressive and Weibull processes. So the relative performance of statistical methods depended upon the model of event generation used to simulate data. In conclusion, it is important that simulation studies of statistical methods for recurrent events include simulated data sets based upon a range of models for event generation. Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16217859     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2310

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


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of statistical models for estimating intervention effects based on time-to-recurrent-event in stepped wedge cluster randomized trial using open cohort design.

Authors:  Shunsuke Oyamada; Shih-Wei Chiu; Takuhiro Yamaguchi
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 4.612

2.  Bayesian modelling of healthcare resource use in multinational randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Aline Gauthier; Andrea Manca; Susan Anton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Alternative statistical methods for estimating efficacy of interferon beta-1b for multiple sclerosis clinical trials.

Authors:  Makiko N Mieno; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Yasuo Ohashi
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Simulating recurrent event data with hazard functions defined on a total time scale.

Authors:  Antje Jahn-Eimermacher; Katharina Ingel; Ann-Kathrin Ozga; Stella Preussler; Harald Binder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-03-08       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  On reporting results from randomized controlled trials with recurrent events.

Authors:  Lisa Kuramoto; Boris G Sobolev; Meghan G Donaldson
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-05-30       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  A DAG-based comparison of interventional effect underestimation between composite endpoint and multi-state analysis in cardiovascular trials.

Authors:  Antje Jahn-Eimermacher; Katharina Ingel; Stella Preussler; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Harald Binder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  No Excess Mortality up to 10 Years in Early Stages of Breast Cancer in Women Adherent to Oral Endocrine Therapy: A Probabilistic Graphical Modeling Approach.

Authors:  Ramon Clèries; Maria Buxó; Mireia Vilardell; Alberto Ameijide; José Miguel Martínez; Rebeca Font; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Montse Puigdemont; Gemma Viñas; Marià Carulla; Josep Alfons Espinàs; Jaume Galceran; Ángel Izquierdo; Josep Maria Borràs
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.