Literature DB >> 26100005

Does Cox analysis of a randomized survival study yield a causal treatment effect?

Odd O Aalen1, Richard J Cook2, Kjetil Røysland3.   

Abstract

Statistical methods for survival analysis play a central role in the assessment of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials in cardiovascular disease, cancer, and many other fields. The most common approach to analysis involves fitting a Cox regression model including a treatment indicator, and basing inference on the large sample properties of the regression coefficient estimator. Despite the fact that treatment assignment is randomized, the hazard ratio is not a quantity which admits a causal interpretation in the case of unmodelled heterogeneity. This problem arises because the risk sets beyond the first event time are comprised of the subset of individuals who have not previously failed. The balance in the distribution of potential confounders between treatment arms is lost by this implicit conditioning, whether or not censoring is present. Thus while the Cox model may be used as a basis for valid tests of the null hypotheses of no treatment effect if robust variance estimates are used, modeling frameworks more compatible with causal reasoning may be preferrable in general for estimation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Causation; Collapsible model; Confounding; Hazard function; Survival data

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26100005     DOI: 10.1007/s10985-015-9335-y

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


  12 in total

1.  The accelerated failure time model: a useful alternative to the Cox regression model in survival analysis.

Authors:  L J Wei
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Dynamic path analysis - a useful tool to investigate mediation processes in clinical survival trials.

Authors:  Susanne Strohmaier; Kjetil Røysland; Rune Hoff; Ørnulf Borgan; Terje R Pedersen; Odd O Aalen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-08-16       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Model inconsistency, illustrated by the Cox proportional hazards model.

Authors:  I Ford; J Norrie; S Ahmadi
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials?

Authors:  W W Hauck; S Anderson; S M Marcus
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1998-06

5.  Absence of confounding does not correspond to collapsibility of the rate ratio or rate difference.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.822

6.  On collapsibility and confounding bias in Cox and Aalen regression models.

Authors:  Torben Martinussen; Stijn Vansteelandt
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  A linear regression model for the analysis of life times.

Authors:  O O Aalen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  S Yusuf; J Wittes; J Probstfield; H A Tyroler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The hazards of hazard ratios.

Authors:  Miguel A Hernán
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Can we believe the DAGs? A comment on the relationship between causal DAGs and mechanisms.

Authors:  O O Aalen; K Røysland; J M Gran; R Kouyos; T Lange
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 3.021

View more
  35 in total

1.  Prevalent cohort studies and unobserved heterogeneity.

Authors:  Niels Keiding; Katrine Lykke Albertsen; Helene Charlotte Rytgaard; Anne Lyngholm Sørensen
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  The additive hazard estimator is consistent for continuous-time marginal structural models.

Authors:  Pål C Ryalen; Mats J Stensrud; Kjetil Røysland
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2019-02-23       Impact factor: 1.588

3.  Causal inference in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Cheng Zheng; Ran Dai; Robert Peter Gale; Mei-Jie Zhang
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 5.483

4.  Dealing with death when studying disease or physiological marker: the stochastic system approach to causality.

Authors:  Daniel Commenges
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 1.588

5.  Defining causal mediation with a longitudinal mediator and a survival outcome.

Authors:  Vanessa Didelez
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  Evaluating the Economic Impact of Palliative and End-of-Life Care Interventions on Intensive Care Unit Utilization and Costs from the Hospital and Healthcare System Perspective.

Authors:  Nita Khandelwal; Lyndia C Brumback; Scott D Halpern; Norma B Coe; Babette Brumback; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 2.947

7.  Estimating effectiveness in HIV prevention trials with a Bayesian hierarchical compound Poisson frailty model.

Authors:  Rebecca Yates Coley; Elizabeth R Brown
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  In Pursuit of Evidence in Air Pollution Epidemiology: The Role of Causally Driven Data Science.

Authors:  Marco Carone; Francesca Dominici; Lianne Sheppard
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 4.822

9.  Patient Centered Hazard Ratio Estimation Using Principal Stratification Weights: Application to the NORCCAP Randomized Trial of Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Todd A MacKenzie; Magnus Løberg; A James O'Malley
Journal:  Obs Stud       Date:  2016-04-24

10.  Measuring and Analyzing Length of Stay in Critical Care Trials.

Authors:  Michael O Harhay; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Dylan S Small; Leah H Suttner; Michael J Crowther; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.