Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLin, NX
dc.contributor.authorLogan, S
dc.contributor.authorHenley, WE
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-30T14:17:56Z
dc.date.issued2013-12
dc.description.abstractOmission of relevant covariates can lead to bias when estimating treatment or exposure effects from survival data in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. This paper presents a general approach to assessing bias when covariates are omitted from the Cox model. The proposed method is applicable to both randomized and non-randomized studies. We distinguish between the effects of three possible sources of bias: omission of a balanced covariate, data censoring and unmeasured confounding. Asymptotic formulae for determining the bias are derived from the large sample properties of the maximum likelihood estimator. A simulation study is used to demonstrate the validity of the bias formulae and to characterize the influence of the different sources of bias. It is shown that the bias converges to fixed limits as the effect of the omitted covariate increases, irrespective of the degree of confounding. The bias formulae are used as the basis for developing a new method of sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of omitted covariates on estimates of treatment or exposure effects. In simulation studies, the proposed method gave unbiased treatment estimates and confidence intervals with good coverage when the true sensitivity parameters were known. We describe application of the method to a randomized controlled trial and a non-randomized study.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank Prof. Robin Henderson for providing the leukaemia and deprivation data. We are grateful for the helpful comments of the editor, associate editor and two referees. This research was funded by the Medical Research Council [grant number G0902158]. William Henley and Stuart Logan were supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 69, pp. 850 - 860en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/biom.12096
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/20879
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley for International Biometric Societyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24224574en_GB
dc.rights© 2013 The Authors. Biometrics published by The International Biometric Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectBias analysisen_GB
dc.subjectCox modelen_GB
dc.subjectOmitted covariatesen_GB
dc.subjectSensitivity analysisen_GB
dc.subjectSurvival analysisen_GB
dc.subjectUnmeasured confoundingen_GB
dc.subjectBias (Epidemiology)en_GB
dc.subjectData Interpretation, Statisticalen_GB
dc.subjectDown Syndromeen_GB
dc.subjectHumansen_GB
dc.subjectLikelihood Functionsen_GB
dc.subjectOutcome Assessment (Health Care)en_GB
dc.subjectPrevalenceen_GB
dc.subjectProportional Hazards Modelsen_GB
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen_GB
dc.subjectRisk Factorsen_GB
dc.subjectSample Sizeen_GB
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificityen_GB
dc.subjectSurvival Analysisen_GB
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen_GB
dc.subjectUnited Statesen_GB
dc.titleBias and sensitivity analysis when estimating treatment effects from the cox model with omitted covariatesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2016-03-30T14:17:56Z
dc.identifier.issn0006-341X
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited States
dc.descriptionThis is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalBiometricsen_GB
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC4230475
dc.identifier.pmid24224574


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record