Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: To determine the appropriate size of risk windows in both exposed and unexposed sub-cohorts. METHOD: Data was taken from a previous study of upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage and perforation. The length of each prescription for NSAIDs was estimated. The risk was calculated for the duration of a prescription plus increments of -30, -25,..., +115, +120 (i.e. 31 increments). Ten unexposed groups were re-sampled for each increment (stratified for age and sex), using the same lengths of risk window as the exposed group. Mean risks and rate-ratios were calculated (per thousand person-years). RESULTS: The NSAID risk rose from 3.52 at -30 days to a peak of 5.82 at -15 days, and then decreased gradually to 2.83 at +120 days. Unexposed risk was variable for the negative increments, and decreased gradually from 2.16 at +0 days to 1.54 at +120 days. The rate-ratio rose from 1.55 at -30 days to a peak of 2.85 at -5 days, and then decreased to 1.85 at +120 days. CONCLUSION: Risk windows should be the same as (or slightly less than) the calculated length of a prescription. Lengthy windows should not be used for unexposed comparator groups (the exposed windows may be randomly allocated).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McMahon et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: