4.4 Article

Understanding and identifying immortal-time bias in surgical health services research: An example using surgical resection of stage IV breast cancer

Journal

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD
Volume 37, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2021.101539

Keywords

Surgery; Metastatic; Breast cancer; Immortal-time bias; Survival analysis

Funding

  1. Cancer Information and Population Health Resource, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
  2. University Cancer Research Fund via the state of North Carolina

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research shows that immortal-time bias may lead to overestimation of treatment effect, researchers should identify and address this issue in design and analysis. By guiding researchers on how to deal with immortal-time bias, treatment benefits can be more accurately assessed.
Surgical health services researchers are increasingly utilizing observational data to assess associations between treatments and outcomes, especially since some procedures are unable to be evaluated through randomized controlled trials. However, the results of many of these studies may be affected by the presence of immortal-time bias, which exists when treatment does not occur on Day 0 of the study. This bias can result in researchers overestimating a treatment benefit, or even observe a treatment benefit when none exists. In this paper, we describe what immortal-time bias is, the challenges it presents, and how to recognize and address it using the real-world example of surgical resection of the primary tumor for stage IV breast cancer throughout. In our example, we guide researchers and illustrate how the early studies, which did not account for immortal-time bias, suggested a protective benefit of surgery, and how these results were supplanted by more recent studies through identifying and addressing immortal-time bias in their design and analyses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available