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 Pharmacoepidemiology
Abstract
Immortal time is a span of cohort follow-up during which, because of exposure definition, the outcome under study could not occur. Bias from immortal time was first identified in the 1970s in epidemiology in the context of cohort studies of the survival benefit of heart transplantation. It recently resurfaced in pharmaco-epidemiology, with several observational studies reporting that various medications can be extremely effective at reducing morbidity and mortality. These studies, while using different cohort designs, all involved some form of immortal time and the corresponding bias. In this paper, the author describes various cohort study designs leading to this bias, quantifies its magnitude under different survival distributions, and illustrates it by using data from a cohort of lung cancer patients. The author shows that for time-based, event-based, and exposure-based cohort definitions, the bias in the rate ratio resulting from misclassified or excluded immortal time increases proportionately to the duration of immortal time. The bias is more pronounced with a decreasing hazard function for the outcome event, as illustrated with the Weibull distribution compared with a constant hazard from the exponential distribution. In conclusion, observational studies of drug benefit in which computerized databases are used must be designed and analyzed properly to avoid immortal time bias.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“This was so that the timing of potential exposure and potential outcome were aligned, to avoid problems with “immortal time bias” when participants would be unable to experience either the exposure (OAT outside of acute care hospitals) or the outcomes (rehospitalization or death) [45].”
Citations
Cites
Robins, J. M., & Finkelstein, D. M. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00779.x · Cited by 877
Zhou, Z., Rahme, E., Abrahamowicz, M., & Pilote, L. (2005) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwi307 · Cited by 425
Bias 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
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available: Table 1.
Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2016) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwv254 · Cited by 3,115
Association Between Opioid Prescribing Patterns and Opioid Overdose-Related Deaths
Bohnert, A. S. B. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.370 · Cited by 1,509
Vigen, R. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.280386 · Cited by 1,003
van de Veerdonk, M. C., Kind, T., Marcus, J. T., Mauritz, G.-J., Heymans, M. W., Bogaard, H.-J., Boonstra, A., Marques, K. M. J., Westerhof, N., & Vonk-Noordegraaf, A. (2011) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.06.068 · Cited by 846
Metadata
- Authors
- Suissa, S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-01-07
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 492-499
- ISSN
- 0002-9262
- 1476-6256
- Cited by
- 1,708
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
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 Pharmacoepidemiology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aje/kwm324
- The paper
- Suissa, S. (2008). Immortal Time Bias in Pharmacoepidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm324