Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 15747588

Comparison between two partial likelihood approaches for the competing risks model with missing cause of failure.

Abstract

In many clinical studies where time to failure is of primary interest, patients may fail or die from one of many causes where failure time can be right censored. In some circumstances, it might also be the case that patients are known to die but the cause of death information is not available for some patients. Under the assumption that cause of death is missing at random, we compare the Goetgbebeur and Ryan (1995, Biometrika, 82, 821-833) partial likelihood approach with the Dewanji (1992, Biometrika, 79, 855-857) partial likelihood approach. We show that the estimator for the regression coefficients based on the Dewanji partial likelihood is not only consistent and asymptotically normal, but also semiparametric efficient. While the Goetghebeur and Ryan estimator is more robust than the Dewanji partial likelihood estimator against misspecification of proportional baseline hazards, the Dewanji partial likelihood estimator allows the probability of missing cause of failure to depend on covariate information without the need to model the missingness mechanism. Tests for proportional baseline hazards are also suggested and a robust variance estimator is derived.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kaifeng Lu, Anastasios A Tsiatis. 2005. Comparison between two partial likelihood approaches for the competing risks model with missing cause of failure.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-004-5638-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Overall and cause-specific mortality in ulcerative colitis: meta-analysis of population-based inception cohort studies.

OBJECTIVES: It remains debated whether patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are at greater risk of dying and whether a possible alteration in mortality can be attributed to specific causes of death. We aimed to clarify this issue by conducting a meta-analysis of population-based inception cohort studies on overall and cause-specific mortality in patients with UC. METHODS: The MEDLINE search engine and abstracts from international conferences were searched for relevant literature by use of explicit search criteria. STATA meta-analysis software was used to calculate pooled risk estimates (SMR, standardized mortality ratio, observed/expected deaths) of overall mortality and specific causes of death and to conduct metaregression analyses of the influence of specific variables on SMR. RESULTS: Ten papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, reporting SMRs varying from 0.7 to 1.4. The overall pooled estimate was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.2, P= 0.42). However, greater risk of dying was observed during the first years of follow-up, in patients with extensive colitis, and in patients from Scandinavia. Metaregression analysis showed an increase in SMR by increasing cohort size. UC-related mortality accounted for 17% of all deaths. Mortality from gastrointestinal diseases, nonalcoholic liver diseases, pulmonary embolisms, and respiratory diseases was increased whereas mortality from pulmonary cancer was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: The overall risk of dying in patients with UC did not differ from that of the background population, although subgroups of patients were at greater risk of dying. The cause-of-death distribution seemed to differ from that of the background population.

Cause of Death↗