Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Bias in revascularization study

Fiona M. Shrive and Ross T. Tsuyuki
CMAJ April 10, 2007 176 (8) 1125-1125-a; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1060238
Fiona M. Shrive
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ross T. Tsuyuki
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • © 2007 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

[Two of the authors respond:]

Carl van Walraven and Alan Forster are correct. In our study,1 the medical treatment group included patients who were truly selected for medical management and those for whom revascularization was planned initially but not carried out owing to early death or patient or provider preference. Thus, some of the patients in the medical treatment group would have been in the revascularization group if information on their initial therapy plan had been available. The bias, then, is perhaps more correctly labelled misclassification bias rather than time-dependent bias.

Thompson and colleagues have elegantly demonstrated the potential effect of such a misclassification in observational studies.2 In this work, 4 groups were analyzed: patients who received coronary artery bypass grafting as recommended, patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention as recommended, patients who received medical management as recommended, and patients who received medical management although percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting had been recommended (this group is comparable to the group misclassified in our work). Indeed, this final group had the poorest survival rate.

Unfortunately, in our study we were unable to differentiate between patients who received medical therapy as a chosen therapy and patients who were treated medically, although the initial plan was for revascularization. Thus, early deaths in the medical management group may have been events that occurred while patients were waiting for a planned revascularization procedure that did not occur. In this case, the issue is not one of time-dependent covariates but rather one of knowing the true intention at t = 0, an issue not easily addressed using observational data. In our case, the separation between the survival curves does occur early on, when this bias would be at play. However, our curves continue to separate over time, indicating a longer term survival advantage that is possibly attributable to revascularization. We thank Walraven and Forster for shedding light on this important issue.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Tsuyuki RT, Shrive FM, Galbraith PD, et al, for the APPROACH Investigators. Revascularization in patients with heart failure. CMAJ 2006;175(4):361-5.
  2. 2.
    Thompson CR, Humphries KH, Gao M, et al. Revascularization use and survival outcomes after cardiac catheterization in British Columbia and Alberta. Can J Cardiol 2004;20(14):1417-23.

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire