Are competing risks models appropriate to describe implant failure?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1444876Abstract
Background and purpose — The use of competing risks models is widely advocated in the arthroplasty literature due to a perceived bias in comparison of simple Kaplan–Meier estimates. Proponents of competing risk models in the arthroplasty literature appear to be unaware of the subtle but important differences in interpretation of net and crude failure estimated by competing risk and Kaplan–Meier methods respectively. Methods — Using a simple simulation we illustrate the differences between competing risks and Kaplan–Meier methods. Results — Competing risk and Kaplan–Meier methods estimate different survival quantities, i.e., crude and net failure respectively. Estimates of crude failure estimated using competing risk methods will be less than net failure as estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Interpretation — Kaplan–Meier methods are appropriate for describing implant failure, whereas crude survival estimated using competing risk methods estimates the risk of surgical revision as it depends on both implant failure and mortality. Both competing risk models and Kaplan–Meier methods are useful in arthroplasty, and both provide unbiased estimates of crude and net failure in the absence of any confounding or selection respectively. Surgeons and researchers should carefully consider whether the use of competing risks is always justified. Lower estimates of failure from competing risk models may be misleading to surgeons who are attempting to select the best implants with the lowest failure rates for their patients.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2018-05-04
How to Cite
Sayers, A., Evans, J. T., Whitehouse, M. R., & Blom, A. W. (2018). Are competing risks models appropriate to describe implant failure?. Acta Orthopaedica, 89(3), 256–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1444876
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Adrian Sayers, Jonathan T Evans, Michael R Whitehouse, Ashley W Blom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Orthopaedica (Scandinavica) content is available freely online as from volume 1, 1930. The journal owner owns the copyright for all material published until volume 80, 2009. As of June 2009, the journal has however been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work. As of June 2009, articles have been published under CC-BY-NC or CC-BY licenses, unless otherwise specified.