PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 15, 2017Statistics in Medicine1,243 citationsOpen Access

Practical recommendations for reportingFine‐Gray model analyses for competing risk data

View Full Paper
PAPeter C. AustinJFJason P. Fine

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

In survival analysis, a competing risk is an event whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the primary event of interest. Outcomes in medical research are frequently subject to competing risks. In survival analysis, there are 2 key questions that can be addressed using competing risk regression models: first, which covariates affect the rate at which events occur, and second, which covariates affect the probability of an event occurring over time. The cause‐specific hazard model estimates the effect of covariates on the rate at which events occur in subjects who are currently event‐free. Subdistribution hazard ratios obtained from the Fine‐Gray model describe the relative effect of covariates on the subdistribution hazard function. Hence, the covariates in this model can also be interpreted as having an effect on the cumulative incidence function or on the probability of events occurring over time. We conducted a review of the use and interpretation of the Fine‐Gray subdistribution hazard model in articles published in the medical literature in 2015. We found that many authors provided an unclear or incorrect interpretation of the regression coefficients associated with this model. An incorrect and inconsistent interpretation of regression coefficients may lead to confusion when comparing results across different studies. Furthermore, an incorrect interpretation of estimated regression coefficients can result in an incorrect understanding about the magnitude of the association between exposure and the incidence of the outcome. The objective of this article is to clarify how these regression coefficients should be reported and to propose suggestions for interpreting these coefficients.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Austin et al. (2017) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d572c175589c71d767e74chttps://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7501
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Accounting for competing risks in randomized controlled trials: a review and recommendations for improvement2017 · 155 citations
  2. 2Introduction to the Analysis of Survival Data in the Presence of Competing Risks2016 · 2,651 citations
  3. 3Generalized Linear Models1989 · 16,895 citations
  4. 4Effectiveness of Public Report Cards for Improving the Quality of Cardiac Care2009 · 259 citations
  5. 5Regression Models and Life-Tables1972 · 39,736 citations