Quantifying bias from dependent left truncation in survival analyses of real world data
Sondhi, A.; Humblet, O.; Swaminathan, A.
Show abstract
In real world data (RWD) studies, observed datasets are often subject to left truncation, which can bias estimates of survival parameters. Standard methods can only suitably account for left truncation when survival and entry time are independent. Therefore, in the dependent left truncation setting, it is important to quantify the magnitude and direction of estimator bias to determine whether an analysis provides valid results. We conduct simulation studies of common RWD analytic settings in order to determine when standard analysis provides reliable estimates, and to identify factors that contribute most to estimator bias. We also outline a procedure for conducting a simulation-based sensitivity analysis for an arbitrary dataset subject to dependent left truncation. Our simulation results show that when comparing a truncated real-world arm to a non-truncated arm, we observe the estimated hazard ratio biased upwards, providing conservative inference. The most important data-generating parameter contributing to bias is the proportion of left truncated patients, given any level of dependence between survival and entry time. For specific datasets and analyses that may differ from our example, we recommend applying our sensitivity analysis approach to determine how results would change given varying proportions of truncation.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Multi-state network meta-analysis of cause-specific survival data 96%
- A Double Machine Learning Approach for the Evaluation of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness under the Test-Negative Design: Analysis of Québec Administrative Data 95%
- Sensitivity to missing not at random dropout in clinical trials: use and interpretation of the Trimmed Means Estimator 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables 91%
- Case-only analysis of gene-environment interactions using polygenic risk scores 91%
- Potential Biases in Test-Negative Design Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Arising from the Inclusion of Asymptomatic Individuals 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Health Utility Adjusted Survival: a Composite Endpoint for Clinical Trial Designs 95%
- Two-Stage Multivariate Mendelian Randomization on Multiple Outcomes with Mixed Distributions 92%
- Estimating the Effects of Treatment Regimes over the Course of Chronic Disease: A Multi-state Causal Framework with Baseline Confounding 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 93%
- Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis for Two-Stream Capture-Recapture Methods in Disease Surveillance 92%
- Causal Estimands for Infectious Disease Count Outcomes to Investigate the Public Health Impact of Interventions 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 95%
- Prediction-powered Inference for Clinical Trials 94%
- Comparison of Bayesian networks, G-estimation and linear models to estimate causal treatment effects in aggregated N-of-1 trials 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.