Noah A Schuster1, Emiel O Hoogendijk2, Almar A L Kok3, Jos W R Twisk2, Martijn W Heymans2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC-Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: n.schuster@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC-Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC-Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC-Location VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Competing events are often ignored in epidemiological studies. Conventional methods for the analysis of survival data assume independent or noninformative censoring, which is violated when subjects that experience a competing event are censored. Because many survival studies do not apply competing risk analysis, we explain and illustrate in a nonmathematical way how to analyze and interpret survival data in the presence of competing events. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using data from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, both marginal analyses (Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression) and competing risk analyses (cumulative incidence function [CIF], cause-specific and subdistribution hazard regression) were performed. We analyzed the association between sex and depressive symptoms, in which death before the onset of depression was a competing event. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the cumulative incidence of depressive symptoms. Instead, the CIF should be used. As the subdistribution hazard model has a one-to-one relation with the CIF, it is recommended for prediction research, whereas the cause-specific hazard model is recommended for etiologic research. CONCLUSION: When competing risks are present, the type of research question guides the choice of the analytical model to be used. In any case, results should be presented for all event types.
OBJECTIVE: Competing events are often ignored in epidemiological studies. Conventional methods for the analysis of survival data assume independent or noninformative censoring, which is violated when subjects that experience a competing event are censored. Because many survival studies do not apply competing risk analysis, we explain and illustrate in a nonmathematical way how to analyze and interpret survival data in the presence of competing events. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using data from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, both marginal analyses (Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards regression) and competing risk analyses (cumulative incidence function [CIF], cause-specific and subdistribution hazard regression) were performed. We analyzed the association between sex and depressive symptoms, in which death before the onset of depression was a competing event. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the cumulative incidence of depressive symptoms. Instead, the CIF should be used. As the subdistribution hazard model has a one-to-one relation with the CIF, it is recommended for prediction research, whereas the cause-specific hazard model is recommended for etiologic research. CONCLUSION: When competing risks are present, the type of research question guides the choice of the analytical model to be used. In any case, results should be presented for all event types.
Authors: Camilla Omann; Camilla Nyboe; Rasmus Kristensen; Andreas Ernst; Cecilia Høst Ramlau-Hansen; Charlotte Rask; Ann Tabor; J William Gaynor; Vibeke E Hjortdal Journal: Eur Heart J Open Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: Amir Razaghizad; Emily Oulousian; Varinder Kaur Randhawa; João Pedro Ferreira; James M Brophy; Stephen J Greene; Julian Guida; G Michael Felker; Marat Fudim; Michael Tsoukas; Tricia M Peters; Thomas A Mavrakanas; Nadia Giannetti; Justin Ezekowitz; Abhinav Sharma Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: David F Moreno; Arturo Pereira; Natalia Tovar; María Teresa Cibeira; Laura Magnano; María Rozman; Mónica López-Guerra; Dolors Colomer; Beatriz Martín-Antonio; Raquel Jiménez-Segura; Ignacio Isola; Luis Gerardo Rodríguez-Lobato; Aina Oliver-Caldés; Mari Pau Mena; Laura Rosiñol; Joan Bladé; Carlos Fernández de Larrea Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Patricia Ramirez; David Vázquez; Gabriel Rodríguez; Juan José Rubio; Marina Pérez; Jose Maria Portolés; Joaquín Carballido Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-07-16
Authors: James G Connolly; Kay See Tan; Brooke Mastrogiacomo; Joseph Dycoco; Raul Caso; Gregory D Jones; Patrick J McCormick; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Takeshi Irie; Joseph R Scarpa; Hersh V Gupta; Prasad S Adusumilli; Gaetano Rocco; James M Isbell; Matthew J Bott; Gregory W Fischer; David R Jones; Joshua S Mincer Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 11.719
Authors: Elena Rolandi; Daniele Zaccaria; Roberta Vaccaro; Simona Abbondanza; Laura Pettinato; Annalisa Davin; Antonio Guaita Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 6.982