--- moleps islon wrote:
> This is the ouput I´m getting using your approach:
>
> n=896, failures=292
>
> stcox var,tvc(var) texp((_t>1)_t)
>
> rh
>
> var HR 0.64, p=0.005, CI 0.47-0.87
>
> t
> var HR 1.01,p=0.001,CI 1.01-1.03
>
> So as far as I understand this the interpretation is that the -var- is
> protective within the first 24hrs, but detrimental afterwards ??
No, the coefficient in the t equation is an interaction effect. So from
t=0 to t=1 the hazard ratio increased with 1%. So at t=0 the hazard ratio
for var is 0.64/1.01=0.62. In other words, in the first 24hrs var was even
more protective than afterwards (but only very little, so I doubt whether
that has any practical relevance).
> Would you say it is sufficient to use the graph to determine the
> "break-point" (_t>1) or should this be done in a more analytical
> fashion?
Graphical methods are just fine, especially as I doubt whether any model
that tries to estimate this point would converge. The data contains very
little information about this point, so even in huge datasets I doubt
whether enough information is available to reliably estimate this point.
Hope this helps,
Maarten
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen
Germany
http://www.maartenbuis.nl
-----------------------------------------
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
