Cited by 425Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survival Bias Associated with Time-to-Treatment Initiation in Drug Effectiveness Evaluation: A Comparison of Methods

Zhou, Zheng, Rahme, Elham, Abrahamowicz, Michal, Pilote, Louise·2005·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The authors compared five methods of studying survival bias associated with time-to-treatment initiation in a drug effectiveness study using medical administrative databases (1996-2002) from Quebec, Canada. The first two methods illustrated how survival bias could be introduced. Three additional methods were considered to control for this bias. Methods were compared in the context of evaluating statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients post-acute myocardial infarction who initiated statins within 90 days after discharge and those who did not. Method 1 that classified patients into users and nonusers at discharge resulted in an overestimation of the benefit (38% relative risk reduction at 1 year). In method 2, following users from the time of the first prescription and nonusers from a randomly selected time between 0 and 90 days attenuated the effect toward the null (10% relative risk reduction). Method 3 controlled for survival bias by following patients from the end of the 90-day time window; however, it suffered a major loss of statistical efficiency and precision. Method 4 matched prescription time distribution between users and nonusers at cohort entry. Method 5 used a time-dependent variable for treatment initiation. Methods 4 and 5 better controlled for survival bias and yielded similar results, suggesting a 20% risk reduction of recurrent myocardial infarction or death events.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwi307

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 26 references

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 425

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, Z., Rahme, E., Abrahamowicz, M., & Pilote, L.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Zhou, Zheng
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2005-09-28
Volume
162
Issue
10
Pages
1016-1023
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2161515661
Cited by
425
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
survivorship bias, time to treatment, statins, secondary prevention, acute myocardial infarction, elderly patients, reinfarction, time-varying covariates
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Myocardial Infarction, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Drug Prescriptions, Quebec, Retrospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Bias, Survival Analysis, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Secondary Prevention

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