Epidemiologic studies and clinical trials with a survival outcome are often challenged by immortal time (IMT), a period of follow-up during which the survival outcome cannot occur because of the observed later treatment initiation. It has been well recognized that failing to properly accommodate IMT leads to biased estimation and misleading inference. Accordingly, a series of statistical methods have been developed, from the simplest by including or excluding IMT to various weightings and the more recent sequential methods. Our literature review suggests that the existing developments are often "scattered", and there is a lack of comprehensive review and direct comparison. To fill this knowledge gap and better introduce this important topic especially to biomedical researchers, we provide this review to comprehensively describe the available methods, discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and equally important, directly compare their performance via simulation and the analysis of the Stanford heart transplant data. The key observation is that the time-varying treatment modeling and sequential trial methods tend to provide unbiased estimation, while the other methods may result in substantial bias. We also provide an in-depth discussion on the interconnections with causal inference.
翻译:我们的文献审查表明,现有发展往往是“分散的”,而且缺乏全面审查和直接比较。为了填补这一知识差距,更好地介绍这一重要专题,特别是生物医学研究人员,我们提供这一审查,以便全面说明现有方法,讨论其利弊,并同样重要的是,通过模拟和分析斯坦福心脏移植数据直接比较其表现。关键观察是,时间变化的治疗模型和顺序试验方法往往提供公正的估计,而其他方法则可能造成实质性的偏差。我们还提供了关于因果关系的深入讨论。