When to Start, How to Classify, and Whom to Include: A Methodological Assessment and Illustrative Example of the Clone-Censor-Weight Approach for Evaluating Intervention Timing in Observational Studies.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2026-09-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CLEP.S618946
Sia Kromann Nicolaisen, Reimar Wernich Thomsen, Lars Pedersen
{"title":"When to Start, How to Classify, and Whom to Include: A Methodological Assessment and Illustrative Example of the Clone-Censor-Weight Approach for Evaluating Intervention Timing in Observational Studies.","authors":"Sia Kromann Nicolaisen, Reimar Wernich Thomsen, Lars Pedersen","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S618946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Observational studies evaluating the effect of timing of an intervention, such as early versus deferred drug treatment initiation or short versus long treatment duration, often suffer from bias due to misalignment between eligibility assessment, intervention assignment, and start of follow-up. The clone-censor-weight approach aligns these time points and allows for estimation of treatment effects under predefined timing strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assess the clone-censor-weight methodology and illustrate its application in an observational registry-based study of individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes, comparing infection risks under four strategies for initiation of glucose-lowering treatment: initiation within 15 days (Strategy 1), 15 days to 3 months (Strategy 2), 3 to 6 months (Strategy 3), or 6 to 12 months (Strategy 4) after diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clone-censor-weight approach established the diabetes diagnosis as the index date across all strategies. The study example included 33,857 individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes. They were cloned and assigned to all four treatment strategies, where 6439 (19.0%) clones adhered to Strategy 1, 8419 (24.9%) to Strategy 2, 5550 (16.2%) to Strategy 3, and 7539 (22.3%) to Strategy 4. The weighted absolute 5-year risks of infection were 67.0% (95% CI 65.3-68.5) for Strategy 1, 65.7% (95% CI 64.1-66.9) for Strategy 2, 66.8% (95% CI 61.8-71.9) for Strategy 3, and 67.8% (95% CI 62.8-72.7) for Strategy 4.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We have assessed the methodology and illustrated the clone-censor-weight approach in a study example evaluating intervention timing. Censoring weights should account for selection bias, estimating per-protocol effects under full adherence, but methodological challenges remain in ensuring that the weights adequately reflect both the target intervention strategies and the population they are intended to represent.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"18 ","pages":"618946"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13615852/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S618946","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Observational studies evaluating the effect of timing of an intervention, such as early versus deferred drug treatment initiation or short versus long treatment duration, often suffer from bias due to misalignment between eligibility assessment, intervention assignment, and start of follow-up. The clone-censor-weight approach aligns these time points and allows for estimation of treatment effects under predefined timing strategies.

Methods: We assess the clone-censor-weight methodology and illustrate its application in an observational registry-based study of individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes, comparing infection risks under four strategies for initiation of glucose-lowering treatment: initiation within 15 days (Strategy 1), 15 days to 3 months (Strategy 2), 3 to 6 months (Strategy 3), or 6 to 12 months (Strategy 4) after diagnosis.

Results: The clone-censor-weight approach established the diabetes diagnosis as the index date across all strategies. The study example included 33,857 individuals with newly diagnosed diabetes. They were cloned and assigned to all four treatment strategies, where 6439 (19.0%) clones adhered to Strategy 1, 8419 (24.9%) to Strategy 2, 5550 (16.2%) to Strategy 3, and 7539 (22.3%) to Strategy 4. The weighted absolute 5-year risks of infection were 67.0% (95% CI 65.3-68.5) for Strategy 1, 65.7% (95% CI 64.1-66.9) for Strategy 2, 66.8% (95% CI 61.8-71.9) for Strategy 3, and 67.8% (95% CI 62.8-72.7) for Strategy 4.

Discussion: We have assessed the methodology and illustrated the clone-censor-weight approach in a study example evaluating intervention timing. Censoring weights should account for selection bias, estimating per-protocol effects under full adherence, but methodological challenges remain in ensuring that the weights adequately reflect both the target intervention strategies and the population they are intended to represent.

何时开始,如何分类,以及包括谁:观察性研究中评估干预时机的克隆-审查-权重方法的方法学评估和说明性示例。
引言:观察性研究评估干预时间的影响,如早期与延迟药物治疗开始,或短与长治疗持续时间,往往遭受偏差,因为资格评估,干预分配和随访开始之间的不一致。克隆-审查-权重方法对齐这些时间点,并允许在预定义的定时策略下估计治疗效果。方法:我们评估了克隆审查者权重方法,并说明了其在新诊断糖尿病患者的观察性登记研究中的应用,比较了四种开始降糖治疗策略下的感染风险:在诊断后15天内开始(策略1),15天至3个月(策略2),3至6个月(策略3)或6至12个月(策略4)。结果:克隆-审查者-权重方法建立了糖尿病诊断作为所有策略的指标日期。该研究包括33,857名新诊断的糖尿病患者。它们被克隆并被分配到所有四种治疗策略,其中6439(19.0%)个克隆服从策略1,8419(24.9%)个克隆服从策略2,5550(16.2%)个克隆服从策略3,7539(22.3%)个克隆服从策略4。策略1的加权绝对5年感染风险为67.0% (95% CI 65.3-68.5),策略2为65.7% (95% CI 64.1-66.9),策略3为66.8% (95% CI 61.8-71.9),策略4为67.8% (95% CI 62.8-72.7)。讨论:我们已经评估了方法,并在评估干预时机的研究实例中说明了克隆审查权方法。审查权重应该考虑到选择偏差,在完全遵守的情况下估计每个方案的影响,但在确保权重充分反映目标干预策略和它们所代表的人群方面,方法学上的挑战仍然存在。
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
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews. When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes. The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书