Cited by 986Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyProbability and Statistical ResearchStatistical Methods and Inference

Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls

Open access
Andersen, Per Kragh, Geskus, Ronald B, de Witte, Theo, Putter, Hein·2012·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In studies of all-cause mortality, the fundamental epidemiological concepts of rate and risk are connected through a well-defined one-to-one relation. An important consequence of this relation is that regression models such as the proportional hazards model that are defined through the hazard (the rate) immediately dictate how the covariates relate to the survival function (the risk). METHODS: This introductory paper reviews the concepts of rate and risk and their one-to-one relation in all-cause mortality studies and introduces the analogous concepts of rate and risk in the context of competing risks, the cause-specific hazard and the cause-specific cumulative incidence function. RESULTS: The key feature of competing risks is that the one-to-one correspondence between cause-specific hazard and cumulative incidence, between rate and risk, is lost. This fact has two important implications. First, the naïve Kaplan-Meier that takes the competing events as censored observations, is biased. Secondly, the way in which covariates are associated with the cause-specific hazards may not coincide with the way these covariates are associated with the cumulative incidence. An example with relapse and non-relapse mortality as competing risks in a stem cell transplantation study is used for illustration. CONCLUSION: The two implications of the loss of one-to-one correspondence between cause-specific hazard and cumulative incidence should be kept in mind when deciding on how to make inference in a competing risks situation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyr213

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The design of our study (an incidence surveillance system), the possible presence of competitive causes of death and the limited period of observation prevent statistical inferences on the association between exposure and time to event (age or latency).

    “The design of our study (an incidence surveillance system), the possible presence of competitive causes of death and the limited period of observation prevent statistical inferences on the association between exposure and time to event (age or latency).39 40”

    From Malignant mesothelioma due to non-occupational asbestos exposure from the Italian national surveillance system (ReNaM): epidemiology and public health issues (2015) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Competing risks section explains why deaths from other causes complicate a naïve analysis. But it also says inference can be made in the presence of competing risks; the 'Independent' competing risks section likewise says independence is not needed for inference. The paper does not assess the citing study’s surveillance design or observation period, so it does not support the conclusion that those factors prevent statistical inference in that study. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andersen, P. K., Geskus, R. B., de Witte, T., & Putter, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Putter, Hein
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2012-01-09
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
861-870
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2154117702
Cited by
985
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 77 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 9
FWCI
41.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (R01-54706-12)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
competing risks, all-cause mortality, cause-specific hazard, cumulative incidence function, stem cell transplantation
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Mortality, Survival Analysis, Epidemiologic Studies, Risk Assessment

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