The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects
Abstract
Purpose: Recent observational studies suggest that various drugs are remarkably effective at reducing morbidity and mortality. These cohort studies used a flawed approach to design and data analysis which can lead to immortal time bias. We describe the bias from 20 of these studies and illustrate it by showing that unrelated drugs can be made to appear effective at treating cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: The illustration used a cohort of 3315 patients, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), identified from the Saskatchewan Health databases, hospitalised for CVD and followed for up to a year. We used the biased approach to assess the effect of two medications, namely gastrointestinal drugs (GID) and inhaled beta‐agonists (IBA), both unknown to be effective in CVD, on the risk of all‐cause mortality. We also estimated these effects using the proper person‐time approach. Results: Using the inappropriate approach, the rates ratios of all‐cause death were 0.73 (95%CI: 0.57–0.93), with IBA and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.61–0.99), with GID. These rate ratios became 0.98 (95%CI: 0.77–1.25) and 0.94 (95%CI: 0.73–1.20), respectively, with the proper person‐time analysis. Conclusions: Several recent observational studies used a flawed approach to design and data analysis, leading to immortal time bias, which can generate an illusion of treatment effectiveness. Observational studies, with surprising beneficial drug effects should be re‐assessed to account for this source of bias. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Zhou, Z., Rahme, E., Abrahamowicz, M., & Pilote, L. (2005) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwi307 · Cited by 425 · cited 1×
“Several alternative approaches to the analysis of cohort studies to avoid misclassified immortal time were recently compared.(30) That paper was to some extent, confusing by its inaccurate designation of immortal time bias as ‘survival’ bias, which has another meaning altogether in epidemiology.”
MethodBias in observational study of the effectiveness of nasal corticosteroids in asthma
Suissa, S., & Ernst, P. (2005) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.12.1118 · Cited by 39 · cited 2×
“The solution is to use a time-dependent definition of exposure that properly classifies this immortal person-time as unexposed, until the start of drug use and exposed thereafter.(3,4,13)”
MethodResultSelf-citation
Cited by
Immortal Time Bias in Pharmacoepidemiology
Suissa, S. (2008) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwm324 · Cited by 1,708
Self-citationHernán, M. A., Sauer, B. C., Hernández-Díaz, S., Platt, R., & Shrier, I. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.014 · Cited by 1,097
Mazzaglia, G., Ambrosioni, E., Alacqua, M., Filippi, A., Sessa, E., Immordino, V., Borghi, C., Brignoli, O., Caputi, A. P., Cricelli, C., et al. (2009) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.108.830299 · Cited by 637
The test-negative design for estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness
Jackson, M. L., & Nelson, J. C. (2013) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.02.053 · Cited by 510
Kumar, A., Zarychanski, R., Light, B., Parrillo, J., Maki, D., Simon, D., Laporta, D., Lapinsky, S., Ellis, P., Mirzanejad, Y., et al. (2010) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181eb3ccd · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Authors
- Suissa, S.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-25
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 241-249
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W2117317003
- Cited by
- 584
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.1357
- The paper
- Suissa, S. (2007). Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.1357
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.