Literature DB >> 3231948

A quantitative study of the bias in estimating the treatment effect caused by omitting a balanced covariate in survival models.

C Chastang1, D Byar, S Piantadosi.   

Abstract

This paper discusses the quantitative aspects of bias in estimates of treatment effect in survival models when there is failure to adjust on balanced prognostic variables. A simple numerical example of this bias is given along with approximate formulae for its calculation in the multiplicative exponential survival model. The accuracy of the formulae is checked by simulation. In addition, approximate calculations and simulations of power loss and the effects of omitting more than one prognostic covariate are presented. The Weibull and Cox models are also examined using simulation. Study of this bias is pertinent to much applied work, and shows that the effect of omitting balanced covariates can be modest unless the variables are strongly prognostic or many in number. This work emphasizes the need for thorough comparisons of adjusted and unadjusted analyses for sensible interpretation of treatment effects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3231948     DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780071205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of balanced and random allocation in clinical trials: a simulation study.

Authors:  M M Rovers; H Straatman; G A Zielhuis
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Prevention of depression in at-risk adolescents: longer-term effects.

Authors:  William R Beardslee; David A Brent; V Robin Weersing; Gregory N Clarke; Giovanna Porta; Steven D Hollon; Tracy R G Gladstone; Robert Gallop; Frances L Lynch; Satish Iyengar; Lynn DeBar; Judy Garber
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 21.596

3.  Estimation of vaccine efficacy in a repeated measures study under heterogeneity of exposure or susceptibility to infection.

Authors:  Clarissa Valim; Maura Mezzetti; James Maguire; Margarita Urdaneta; David Wypij
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2008-07-13       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparative optimism in models involving both classical clinical and gene expression information.

Authors:  Caroline Truntzer; Delphine Maucort-Boulch; Pascal Roy
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 5.  Survival analysis part IV: further concepts and methods in survival analysis.

Authors:  T G Clark; M J Bradburn; S B Love; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-09-01       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Bias and sensitivity analysis when estimating treatment effects from the cox model with omitted covariates.

Authors:  Nan Xuan Lin; Stuart Logan; William Edward Henley
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 2.571

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.