ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Strategy to Control Biases in Prior Event Rate Ratio Method, With Application to Palliative Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Strategy to Control Biases in Prior Event Rate Ratio Method, With Application to Palliative Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior event rate ratio (PERR) is a method shown to perform well in mitigating confounding and is gaining popularity in real-world evidence research. However, it depends on several model assumptions. We propose an analytic strategy to correct biases arising from violation of two model assumptions, namely, population homogeneity and event-independent treatment. We propose a reformulation of PERR estimation by embedding a treatment-by-period interaction term in the Andersen-Gill model for recurrent event data, which is robust to bias arising from unobserved heterogeneity. Based on this model, we propose a set of methods to examine the presence of event-dependent treatment and to correct the resultant bias. We evaluate the proposed methods by simulation and apply it to a de-identified dataset on palliative care and emergency department visits in patients with advanced cancer. Simulation results showed that the proposed method could mitigate the two sources of bias in PERR. In the palliative care study, analysis by the Cox model showed that patients who had started receiving palliative care had higher incidence of emergency department visits than their match controls (hazard ratio 3.31; 95% confidence interval 2.78-3.94). Using PERR without the proposed bias control strategy indicated a 19% reduction of the incidence (0.81; 0.64-1.02). However, there was evidence of event-dependent treatment. The proposed correction method showed no effect of palliative care on ED visits (1.00; 0.79-1.26). In conclusion, the proposed analytic strategy can control two sources of biases in the PERR approach. It enriches the armamentarium for real-world evidence research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.