Enrique F Schisterman1, Stephen R Cole, Aijun Ye, Robert W Platt. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Statistics, and Prevention Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 20854, USA. schistee@mail.nih.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selection is a common problem in paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, and truncation can be thought of as missing person time that can result in selection bias. Left truncation, also known as late or staggered entry, may induce selection bias and/or adversely affect precision. There are two kinds of left truncation: fixed left truncation where the start of follow-up is initiated at a set time, and variable left truncation where follow-up begins at a stochastically varying time-point. METHODS: Using data from a time-to-pregnancy study, augmented by a simulation study, we demonstrate the effects of fixed and variable truncation on estimates of the hazard ratio. RESULTS: First, fixed or variable non-differential left truncation results in a loss of precision. Fixed or variable differential left truncation results in a bias either towards or away from the null as well as a loss of precision. The extent and direction of this bias is a function of the size and direction of the association between exposure and outcome, and occurs in common scenarios and under a wide range of conditions. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated in simulation studies, selection bias due to left truncation could have a serious impact on inferences, especially in the case of fixed or variable differential left truncation. When present in epidemiologic studies, proper accounting for left truncation is just as important as proper accounting for right censoring.
BACKGROUND: Selection is a common problem in paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, and truncation can be thought of as missing person time that can result in selection bias. Left truncation, also known as late or staggered entry, may induce selection bias and/or adversely affect precision. There are two kinds of left truncation: fixed left truncation where the start of follow-up is initiated at a set time, and variable left truncation where follow-up begins at a stochastically varying time-point. METHODS: Using data from a time-to-pregnancy study, augmented by a simulation study, we demonstrate the effects of fixed and variable truncation on estimates of the hazard ratio. RESULTS: First, fixed or variable non-differential left truncation results in a loss of precision. Fixed or variable differential left truncation results in a bias either towards or away from the null as well as a loss of precision. The extent and direction of this bias is a function of the size and direction of the association between exposure and outcome, and occurs in common scenarios and under a wide range of conditions. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated in simulation studies, selection bias due to left truncation could have a serious impact on inferences, especially in the case of fixed or variable differential left truncation. When present in epidemiologic studies, proper accounting for left truncation is just as important as proper accounting for right censoring.
Authors: Stephen R Cole; Rui Li; Kathryn Anastos; Roger Detels; Mary Young; Joan S Chmiel; Alvaro Muñoz Journal: Stat Med Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Enrique F Schisterman; Anne M Sweeney; Timothy C Wilcosky; Robert E Gore-Langton; Courtney D Lynch; Dana Boyd Barr; Steven M Schrader; Sungduk Kim; Zhen Chen; Rajeshwari Sundaram Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 3.980
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Ann Aschengrau; Lauren A Wise Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Jennifer L Weuve; Ann Aschengrau; Rebecca J Song; Lauren A Wise Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Kenneth J Rothman; Elizabeth E Hatch; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Henrik T Sørensen; Lauren A Wise Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Olivia R Orta; Elizabeth E Hatch; Annette K Regan; Rebecca Perkins; Amelia K Wesselink; Sydney K Willis; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Kenneth J Rothman; Lauren A Wise Journal: Vaccine Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Amelia K Wesselink; Lauren A Wise; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Joseph B Stanford; Craig J McKinnon; Shruthi Mahalingaiah Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Deshayne B Fell; David L Buckeridge; Robert W Platt; Jay S Kaufman; Olga Basso; Kumanan Wilson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: S Høyer; A H Riis; G Toft; L A Wise; E E Hatch; A K Wesselink; K J Rothman; H T Sørensen; E M Mikkelsen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 6.918