Cargando…
Immortal time bias for life-long conditions in retrospective observational studies using electronic health records
BACKGROUND: Immortal time bias is common in observational studies but is typically described for pharmacoepidemiology studies where there is a delay between cohort entry and treatment initiation. METHODS: This study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked national mortality da...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8962148/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35350993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01581-1 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Immortal time bias is common in observational studies but is typically described for pharmacoepidemiology studies where there is a delay between cohort entry and treatment initiation. METHODS: This study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked national mortality data in England from 2000 to 2019 to investigate immortal time bias for a specific life-long condition, intellectual disability. Life expectancy (Chiang’s abridged life table approach) was compared for 33,867 exposed and 980,586 unexposed individuals aged 10+ years using five methods: (1) treating immortal time as observation time; (2) excluding time before date of first exposure diagnosis; (3) matching cohort entry to first exposure diagnosis; (4) excluding time before proxy date of inputting first exposure diagnosis (by the physician); and (5) treating exposure as a time-dependent measure. RESULTS: When not considered in the design or analysis (Method 1), immortal time bias led to disproportionately high life expectancy for the exposed population during the first calendar period (additional years expected to live: 2000–2004: 65.6 [95% CI: 63.6,67.6]) compared to the later calendar periods (2005–2009: 59.9 [58.8,60.9]; 2010–2014: 58.0 [57.1,58.9]; 2015–2019: 58.2 [56.8,59.7]). Date of entry of diagnosis (Method 4) was unreliable in this CPRD cohort. The final methods (Method 2, 3 and 5) appeared to solve the main theoretical problem but residual bias may have remained. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that immortal time bias is a significant issue for studies of life-long conditions that use electronic health record data and requires careful consideration of how clinical diagnoses are entered onto electronic health record systems. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01581-1. |
---|