Cargando…

Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown

BACKGROUND: When dealing with recurrent events in observational studies it is common to include subjects who became at risk before follow-up. This phenomenon is known as left censoring, and simply ignoring these prior episodes can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. We aimed to propose a stati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hernández-Herrera, Gilma, Moriña, David, Navarro, Albert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8761288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35034622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01503-1
_version_ 1784633496527962112
author Hernández-Herrera, Gilma
Moriña, David
Navarro, Albert
author_facet Hernández-Herrera, Gilma
Moriña, David
Navarro, Albert
author_sort Hernández-Herrera, Gilma
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: When dealing with recurrent events in observational studies it is common to include subjects who became at risk before follow-up. This phenomenon is known as left censoring, and simply ignoring these prior episodes can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. We aimed to propose a statistical method that performs well in this setting. METHODS: Our proposal was based on the use of models with specific baseline hazards. In this, the number of prior episodes were imputed when unknown and stratified according to whether the subject had been at risk of presenting the event before t = 0. A frailty term was also used. Two formulations were used for this “Specific Hazard Frailty Model Imputed” based on the “counting process” and “gap time.” Performance was then examined in different scenarios through a comprehensive simulation study. RESULTS: The proposed method performed well even when the percentage of subjects at risk before follow-up was very high. Biases were often below 10% and coverages were around 95%, being somewhat conservative. The gap time approach performed better with constant baseline hazards, whereas the counting process performed better with non-constant baseline hazards. CONCLUSIONS: The use of common baseline methods is not advised when knowledge of prior episodes experienced by a participant is lacking. The approach in this study performed acceptably in most scenarios in which it was evaluated and should be considered an alternative in this context. It has been made freely available to interested researchers as R package miRecSurv. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01503-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8761288
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87612882022-01-18 Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown Hernández-Herrera, Gilma Moriña, David Navarro, Albert BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: When dealing with recurrent events in observational studies it is common to include subjects who became at risk before follow-up. This phenomenon is known as left censoring, and simply ignoring these prior episodes can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. We aimed to propose a statistical method that performs well in this setting. METHODS: Our proposal was based on the use of models with specific baseline hazards. In this, the number of prior episodes were imputed when unknown and stratified according to whether the subject had been at risk of presenting the event before t = 0. A frailty term was also used. Two formulations were used for this “Specific Hazard Frailty Model Imputed” based on the “counting process” and “gap time.” Performance was then examined in different scenarios through a comprehensive simulation study. RESULTS: The proposed method performed well even when the percentage of subjects at risk before follow-up was very high. Biases were often below 10% and coverages were around 95%, being somewhat conservative. The gap time approach performed better with constant baseline hazards, whereas the counting process performed better with non-constant baseline hazards. CONCLUSIONS: The use of common baseline methods is not advised when knowledge of prior episodes experienced by a participant is lacking. The approach in this study performed acceptably in most scenarios in which it was evaluated and should be considered an alternative in this context. It has been made freely available to interested researchers as R package miRecSurv. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01503-1. BioMed Central 2022-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8761288/ /pubmed/35034622 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01503-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hernández-Herrera, Gilma
Moriña, David
Navarro, Albert
Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
title Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
title_full Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
title_fullStr Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
title_full_unstemmed Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
title_short Left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
title_sort left-censored recurrent event analysis in epidemiological studies: a proposal for when the number of previous episodes is unknown
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8761288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35034622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01503-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hernandezherreragilma leftcensoredrecurrenteventanalysisinepidemiologicalstudiesaproposalforwhenthenumberofpreviousepisodesisunknown
AT morinadavid leftcensoredrecurrenteventanalysisinepidemiologicalstudiesaproposalforwhenthenumberofpreviousepisodesisunknown
AT navarroalbert leftcensoredrecurrenteventanalysisinepidemiologicalstudiesaproposalforwhenthenumberofpreviousepisodesisunknown