[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Lambert, Paul C. (Dr.)" <pl4@leicester.ac.uk> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: Choice of analysis time in survival analysis where the hazard is associated with age |

Date |
Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:42:02 +0000 |

Roland, I agree with Steve, you should be using age as the time-scale. If you do choose to use -stpm2- with age as the time scale then you can see an example using a large data set (>400,000 individuals) in my recent UK Stata Users Group presentation (slides 27-32). http://www2.le.ac.uk/Members/pl4/slides/Stata-UK-2009-handout.pdf This example is described in more detail in our recent Stata Journal article including extensing to multiple time-scales. http://www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0165 If the relative effect of socioeconomics status is a function of age then this is just a time-dependent effect and can be implemented in -stpm2- using the -tvc()- and -dftvc()- options. Another way to think of a time-dependent effect is that there is an interaction between your covariate of interest (socioeconomic status) and your time-scale, i.e. age. Paul Dr Paul C Lambert Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics Centre for Biostatistics & Genetic Epidemiology Department of Health Sciences University of Leicester 2nd Floor, Adrian Building University Road Leicester LE1 7RH Tel: +44 (0)116 229 7265, Fax: +44 (0)116 229 7250 e-mail: paul.lambert@le.ac.uk Homepage: http://www2.le.ac.uk/Members/pl4/ ________________________________________ From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of sjsamuels@gmail.com [sjsamuels@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:08 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: Re: st: Choice of analysis time in survival analysis where the hazard is associated with age Definitely do use age as the time dimension. It is the natural dimension. The start-time in 1/1/1991 is an artifact of your data collection and has no natural meaning. I would, at least to begin, also ignore events before 1/1/1991 and operate on the true cohort: those alive and well without appendicitis on that date. For analysis, I recommend -stpm2- by Patrick Royston and Paul Lambert ("findit stpm2") That command fits flexible spline models to the underlying hazard in the Cox model, and allows interactions of the spline functions with other factors. The original -stpm- command is described in: Patrick Royston Flexible parametric alternatives to the Cox model, and more, The Stata Journal (2001) 1, Number 1, pp. 1?28. Fitting a model to most of the life-span is a challenge. lRather than fit a single model, stratified or not, l to the entire life span (ages 1-64), I suggest that initially, you divide age into "natural" intervals and fit a separate model to each, with observations censored at the interval end (this is not an analysis with age strata). Then pause and decide if and how you would like to do a combined analysis. You do not mention the goals of your analyses, but if you have a sufficient number of events, consider setting aside one portion of your data for choosing your best models, and another portion for testing the hypotheses and fits of these models. -Steve On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:38 AM, roland andersson <rolandersson@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a large national dataset and plan to analyse socioeconomic > differences in risk of having appendicitis. Persons born after 1949 to > end of 1990 and alive at 1/1/1991 (n=4.500.000) are included in the > dataset. The dataset contains the date when a person was operated for > appendicitis between 1/11/1990 and 31/12/2003 and date of death. > > The hazard of having appendicitis is agedependent and is increasing > till age 13 and then decreasing. Previous collaborators have made > Coxregression with time from 1/11/1990 to the appendicitisdiagnosis or > censoring as analysistime, and have entered age at operation as > covariates to control for the age-dependent differencies in hazard. > > Knowing that the hazard is age-dependent I think this may give biased > results. I therefore wonder if it would be better to use age as > analysis time (with late entries) instead of time from start of follow > up with adjustment for age. Am I right to think that this will be a > better way of controling for the age-dependent differences in hazard? > If that is the case may I also include age as a covariate in the > analysis or would that complicate things? > > I have also considered to use a stratified analysis with ageintervals > as stratification variable. Can you give some advice on how these > ageintervals should be chosen in view of the agedependent increasing > and decreasing hazard? > > I would appreciate your comments. > > Roland Andersson, MD PhD > * > * 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/ > -- Steven Samuels sjsamuels@gmail.com 18 Cantine's Island Saugerties NY 12477 USA 845-246-0774 * * 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/ * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Choice of analysis time in survival analysis where the hazard is associated with age***From:*sjsamuels@gmail.com

- Prev by Date:
**st: Mixed model: fixed intercept and random-coefficient** - Next by Date:
**st: IV Quantile Regression and Test of Equality** - Previous by thread:
**st: Mixed model: fixed intercept and random-coefficient** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Choice of analysis time in survival analysis where the hazard is associated with age** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |