↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Conditioning on future exposure to define study cohorts can induce bias: the case of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid and risk of major bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Conditioning on future exposure to define study cohorts can induce bias: the case of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid and risk of major bleeding
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/clep.s147175
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L Lund, Erzsébet Horváth-Puhó, Szimonetta Komjáthiné Szépligeti, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Lars Pedersen, Vera Ehrenstein, Til Stürmer

Abstract

A principle of cohort studies is that cohort membership is defined by current rather than future exposure information. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies using existing databases are vulnerable to violation of this principle. We evaluated the impact of using data on future redemption of prescriptions to determine cohort membership, motivated by a published example seeking to emulate a "per-protocol" association between continuous versus never use of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and major bleeding (e.g., cerebral hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding). Danish medical registry data from 2004 to 2011 were used to construct two analytic cohorts. In Cohort 1, we used information about future redemption of low-dose ASA prescriptions to identify cohorts of continuous and never-ASA users. In Cohort 2, we identified ASA initiators and non-initiators using only contemporaneous data and censored follow-up for changes in use over time. We implemented propensity score-matched Poisson regression to evaluate associations between ASA use and major bleeding and estimated adjusted incidence rate differences (IRDs) per 1,000 person-years and ratios (IRRs) overall and stratified by time since initiation. Among >6 million eligible Danish adults, we identified 403,693 low-dose ASA initiators (Cohort 2), of whom 189,150 were defined as continuous users (Cohort 1). Overall, IRDs and IRRs were similar across cohorts. However, the IRD for major bleeding in the first 90 days was substantially larger in Cohort 1 (IRD=25 per 1,000 person-years) compared with Cohort 2 (IRD=10 per 1,000 person-years). Using future medication redemption data to define baseline cohorts violates basic epidemiologic principles. Compared with an approach using only contemporaneous data to define cohorts, the approach based on future redemption data generated a substantially higher short-term association between low-dose ASA use and major bleeding on the absolute, but not the relative, scale possibly due to selection and immortal time biases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 17 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 20 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#5,325,431
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#226
of 813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,307
of 344,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.