↓ Skip to main content

Simulation shows undesirable results for competing risks analysis with time-dependent covariates for clinical outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Simulation shows undesirable results for competing risks analysis with time-dependent covariates for clinical outcomes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0535-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inga Poguntke, Martin Schumacher, Jan Beyersmann, Martin Wolkewitz

Abstract

We evaluate three methods for competing risks analysis with time-dependent covariates in comparison with the corresponding methods with time-independent covariates. We used cause-specific hazard analysis and two summary approaches for in-hospital death: logistic regression and regression of the subdistribution hazard. We analysed real hospital data (n=1864) and considered pneumonia on admission / hospital-acquired pneumonia as time-independent / time-dependent covariates for the competing events 'discharge alive' and 'in-hospital death'. Several simulation studies with time-constant hazards were conducted. All approaches capture the effect of time-independent covariates, whereas the approaches perform differently with time-dependent covariates. The subdistribution approach for time-dependent covariates detected effects in a simulated no-effects setting and provided counter-intuitive effects in other settings. The extension of the Fine and Gray model to time-dependent covariates is in general not a helpful synthesis of the cause-specific hazards. Cause-specific hazard analysis and, for uncensored data, the odds ratio are capable of handling competing risks data with time-dependent covariates but the use of the subdistribution approach should be neglected until the problems can be resolved. For general right-censored data, cause-specific hazard analysis is the method of choice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 40%
Mathematics 7 14%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2020.
All research outputs
#3,959,700
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#627
of 2,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,766
of 326,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#21
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.