Martin Wolkewitz1, J Beyersmann, P Gastmeier, M Schumacher. 1. Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany. wolke@fdm.uni-freiburg.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The impact of time-dependent exposures on the time until study endpoint may correctly be analyzed with data of a full cohort. Ignoring the time-dependent nature of these exposures leads to time-dependent bias. Matching for time to exposure is often applied to take the time-dependency into account, but prefixed sets of exposed and unexposed may still create bias. This approach is attractive since a subcohort would also save resources, especially when exposure and outcome data are only available in the full cohort but further covariate information is required. The first objective is to show to which extent matching for time to exposure yields biased results. Secondly, exposure density sampling is introduced and explored. METHODS: To evaluate how both sampling methods perform, they are compared to the correct method as well as to the approach in which the time-dependent nature of the exposure is ignored. Real data of the SIR-3 study (Germany, 2000-2001) and a simulation study are used. RESULTS: Simulations show that matching may reduce the time-dependent bias but still there is a bias. The matching bias decreases if fewer patients are exposed. Exposure density sampling yields unbiased results. CONCLUSIONS: Results from studies in which matching for time to exposure was applied are only tolerable for rare exposures. Whenever subcohorting is the intention in order to save resources, exposure density sampling should be preferred instead.
OBJECTIVES: The impact of time-dependent exposures on the time until study endpoint may correctly be analyzed with data of a full cohort. Ignoring the time-dependent nature of these exposures leads to time-dependent bias. Matching for time to exposure is often applied to take the time-dependency into account, but prefixed sets of exposed and unexposed may still create bias. This approach is attractive since a subcohort would also save resources, especially when exposure and outcome data are only available in the full cohort but further covariate information is required. The first objective is to show to which extent matching for time to exposure yields biased results. Secondly, exposure density sampling is introduced and explored. METHODS: To evaluate how both sampling methods perform, they are compared to the correct method as well as to the approach in which the time-dependent nature of the exposure is ignored. Real data of the SIR-3 study (Germany, 2000-2001) and a simulation study are used. RESULTS: Simulations show that matching may reduce the time-dependent bias but still there is a bias. The matching bias decreases if fewer patients are exposed. Exposure density sampling yields unbiased results. CONCLUSIONS: Results from studies in which matching for time to exposure was applied are only tolerable for rare exposures. Whenever subcohorting is the intention in order to save resources, exposure density sampling should be preferred instead.
Authors: Marlieke E A de Kraker; Martin Wolkewitz; Peter G Davey; Walter Koller; Jutta Berger; Jan Nagler; Claudine Icket; Smilja Kalenic; Jasminka Horvatic; Harald Seifert; Achim J Kaasch; Olga Paniara; Athina Argyropoulou; Maria Bompola; Edmond Smyth; Mairead Skally; Annibale Raglio; Uga Dumpis; Agita Melbarde Kelmere; Michael Borg; Deborah Xuereb; Mihaela C Ghita; Michelle Noble; Jana Kolman; Stanko Grabljevec; David Turner; Louise Lansbury; Hajo Grundmann Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Adrian G Barnett; Katie Page; Megan Campbell; Elizabeth Martin; Rebecca Rashleigh-Rolls; Kate Halton; David L Paterson; Lisa Hall; Nerina Jimmieson; Katherine White; Nicholas Graves Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Cherry Lim; Elizabeth A Ashley; Raph L Hamers; Paul Turner; Thomas Kesteman; Samuel Akech; Alejandra Corso; Mayfong Mayxay; Iruka N Okeke; Direk Limmathurotsakul; H Rogier van Doorn Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 13.310
Authors: Thomas Heister; Martin Wolkewitz; Philip Hehn; Jan Wolff; Markus Dettenkofer; Hajo Grundmann; Klaus Kaier Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2019-08-01
Authors: Sabine Engler-Hüsch; Thomas Heister; Nico T Mutters; Jan Wolff; Klaus Kaier Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 2.655