Literature DB >> 25792175

Comparing center-specific cumulative incidence functions.

Ludi Fan1, Douglas E Schaubel2.   

Abstract

The competing risks data structure arises frequently in clinical and epidemiologic studies. In such settings, the cumulative incidence function is often used to describe the ultimate occurrence of a particular cause of interest. If the objective of the analysis is to compare subgroups of patients with respect to cumulative incidence, imbalance with respect to group-specific covariate distributions must generally be factored out, particularly in observational studies. This report proposes a measure to contrast center- (or, more generally group-) specific cumulative incidence functions (CIF). One such application involves evaluating organ procurement organizations with respect to the cumulative incidence of kidney transplantation. In this case, the competing risks include (i) death on the wait-list and (ii) removal from the wait-list. The proposed method assumes proportional cause-specific hazards, which are estimated through Cox models stratified by center. The proposed center effect measure compares the average CIF for a given center to the average CIF that would have resulted if that particular center had covariate pattern-specific cumulative incidence equal to that of the national average. We apply the proposed methods to data obtained from a national organ transplant registry.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Center effect; Competing risks; Cox regression; Cumulative incidence function; Kidney transplantation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25792175      PMCID: PMC4575839          DOI: 10.1007/s10985-015-9324-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal        ISSN: 1380-7870            Impact factor:   1.588


  9 in total

1.  A review and critique of some models used in competing risk analysis.

Authors:  M Gail
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Estimates of absolute cause-specific risk in cohort studies.

Authors:  J Benichou; M H Gail
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  SAS macros for estimation of direct adjusted cumulative incidence curves under proportional subdistribution hazards models.

Authors:  Xu Zhang; Mei-Jie Zhang
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 5.428

4.  A nonidentifiability aspect of the problem of competing risks.

Authors:  A Tsiatis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1975-01       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Comparing risk-adjustment methods for provider profiling.

Authors:  E R DeLong; E D Peterson; D M DeLong; L H Muhlbaier; S Hackett; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Prediction of cumulative incidence function under the proportional hazards model.

Authors:  S C Cheng; J P Fine; L J Wei
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks.

Authors:  R L Prentice; J D Kalbfleisch; A V Peterson; N Flournoy; V T Farewell; N E Breslow
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Summarizing differences in cumulative incidence functions.

Authors:  Mei-Jie Zhang; Jason Fine
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Analyzing center specific outcomes in hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Authors:  Brent R Logan; Gene O Nelson; John P Klein
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2008-10-03       Impact factor: 1.588

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Evaluating center performance in the competing risks setting: Application to outcomes of wait-listed end-stage renal disease patients.

Authors:  Sai H Dharmarajan; Douglas E Schaubel; Rajiv Saran
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 2.571

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.