4.5 Article

Bias by censoring for competing events in survival analysis

Journal

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 378, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071349

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation-Flanders)
  2. Applied Biomedical Research with a Primary Social Finality
  3. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Research Foundation-Flanders) [IWT.150199]
  4. [1844019N]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Competing risks in survival analysis can lead to biased cumulative incidence estimators. Competing risks methods, such as the Aalen-Johansen method and the Fine and Gray model, can alleviate this bias and should be preferred over traditional methods.
In survival analysis, competing events preclude the occurrence of the event of interest. The censoring of competing events is common in medical studies but leads to biased cumulative incidence estimators. Competing risks methods, such as the non-parametric Aalen-Johansen method or the semi -parametric Fine and Gray model, alleviate this bias and should be preferred above the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox model, respectively. As an illustrative example, in a large European cohort, we report on the differences in the cumulative incidence estimates of graft failure after kidney transplantation, caused by censoring for recipient death.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available