Non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias of period-specific and conventional hazard ratio in randomized controlled trials.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Helen Bian, Menglan Pang, Guanbo Wang, Zihang Lu
{"title":"Non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias of period-specific and conventional hazard ratio in randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Helen Bian, Menglan Pang, Guanbo Wang, Zihang Lu","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02402-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The hazard ratio of the Cox proportional hazards model is widely used in randomized controlled trials to assess treatment effects. However, two properties of the hazard ratio including the non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias need to be further investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conduct simulations to differentiate the non-collapsibility effect and built-in selection bias from the difference between the marginal and the conditional hazard ratio. Meanwhile, we explore the performance of the Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting for covariate adjustment when estimating the marginal hazard ratio. The built-in selection bias is further assessed in the period-specific hazard ratio.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The conditional hazard ratio is a biased estimate of the marginal effect due to the non-collapsibility property. In contrast, the hazard ratio estimated from the inverse probability of treatment weighting Cox model provides an unbiased estimate of the true marginal hazard ratio. The built-in selection bias only manifests in the period-specific hazard ratios even when the proportional hazards assumption is satisfied. The Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting can be used to account for confounding bias and provide an unbiased effect under the randomized controlled trials setting when the parameter of interest is the marginal effect.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We propose that the period-specific hazard ratios should always be avoided due to the profound effects of built-in selection bias.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"292"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02402-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The hazard ratio of the Cox proportional hazards model is widely used in randomized controlled trials to assess treatment effects. However, two properties of the hazard ratio including the non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias need to be further investigated.

Methods: We conduct simulations to differentiate the non-collapsibility effect and built-in selection bias from the difference between the marginal and the conditional hazard ratio. Meanwhile, we explore the performance of the Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting for covariate adjustment when estimating the marginal hazard ratio. The built-in selection bias is further assessed in the period-specific hazard ratio.

Results: The conditional hazard ratio is a biased estimate of the marginal effect due to the non-collapsibility property. In contrast, the hazard ratio estimated from the inverse probability of treatment weighting Cox model provides an unbiased estimate of the true marginal hazard ratio. The built-in selection bias only manifests in the period-specific hazard ratios even when the proportional hazards assumption is satisfied. The Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting can be used to account for confounding bias and provide an unbiased effect under the randomized controlled trials setting when the parameter of interest is the marginal effect.

Conclusions: We propose that the period-specific hazard ratios should always be avoided due to the profound effects of built-in selection bias.

随机对照试验中特定时期危险比和常规危险比的不可比性和内在选择偏差。
背景:随机对照试验中广泛使用 Cox 比例危险模型的危险比来评估治疗效果。然而,需要进一步研究危险比的两个特性,包括非可比性和内置选择偏差:方法:我们通过模拟,从边际危险比和条件危险比之间的差异来区分非可比性效应和内置选择偏差。同时,我们还探讨了在估计边际危险比时,采用治疗反概率加权的 Cox 模型的协变量调整性能。我们还进一步评估了特定时期危险比的内在选择偏差:结果:由于非可比性,条件危险比对边际效应的估计存在偏差。相比之下,根据治疗加权逆概率考克斯模型估算的危害比对真正的边际危害比的估算是无偏的。即使在满足比例危害假设的情况下,内置的选择偏差也只表现在特定时期的危害比上。当感兴趣的参数是边际效应时,具有治疗逆概率加权的 Cox 模型可用于考虑混杂偏差,并在随机对照试验设置下提供无偏效应:我们建议,由于内在选择偏差的深远影响,应始终避免使用特定时期危险比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信