The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Immortal time bias in observational studies of time-to-event outcomes
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
A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk
Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144 · Cited by 14,290 · cited 2×
“In competing risks analysis of the example data using the method of Fine and Gray[15], results showed insufficient evidence of a difference in mortality (HR = 0.”
MethodInfluentialCritically Ill Patients With 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Infection in Canada
Kumar, A. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1496 · Cited by 1,425
Time-dependent bias was common in survival analyses published in leading clinical journals
van Walraven, C., Davis, D., Forster, A. J., & Wells, G. A. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.12.008 · Cited by 337
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, M., & Fowler, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Critical Care
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-12
- Volume
- 36
- Pages
- 195-199
- ISSN
- 0883-9441 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2492495737
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.44
- 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 time-to-event outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.07.017
- The paper
- Jones, M., & Fowler, R. (2016). Immortal time bias in observational studies of time-to-event outcomes. Journal of Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.07.017
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.
