0
$\begingroup$

During the follow-up time, event A will happen multiple times, and there are 3 types of A, I call it A1, A2 and A3. I wonder if there is a statistical method that I can calculate the incidence rates of A1, A2 and A3 separately and compare the incidence rate to each other?

Should I only consider A1 as the event of interest, and consider A2 and A3 as no event, then the incidence rate be N of A1 events/total Person-years during follow-up? And for A2, incidence rate is N of A2/total person-year during follow-up? Would it be problematic that the denominators are the same? How can I compare them?

Thank you so much for your input, Bernhard! I have provided more details as below:

Please give more information on A. Can one person have more than one event A?

Yes, one person can have more than one event A during follow-up.

Can they have different types of A at once or consequently?

They can only have one type of A at each time but could have different types of A during follow-up.

Can a patient have more then one A per year?

In our data, there is no such case, but theoretically patient can have multiple A in one year.

Maybe we can model this as a binomial experiment where each person-year comes with the same probability of each A? Then a proportions test would be the obvious choice. Are the person-years censored (like: Wie have some individuals with 20 person-years observed an some with only 2 person-years observed)? That would draw things towards survival models

*Yes, person-years could be censored, and some patients have quite short follow-up time.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Please give more information on A. Can one person have mot then one event A? Can they have different types of A at once or consequently? Can a patient have more then one A per year? Maybe we can model this as a binomial experiment where each person-year comes with the same probability of each A? Then a proportions test would be the obvious choice. Are the person-years censored (like: Wie have some individuals with 20 person-years observed an some with only 2 person-years observed)? That would draw things towards survival models$\dots$ Please specify. $\endgroup$
    – Bernhard
    Jan 23, 2018 at 10:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Let's assume, the incidence rate of A1, A2 and A3 are constant values (not increading or decreasing in time), then this could probably be modelled as $Poisson$-distributed. (Though you would need to check for overdispersion and then consider negative-binomial distribution or sth. similar. Let's stick to Poisson for the time being, just to show the approach).

A Poisson distribution is defined by the incidence rate $\lambda$ (the incidence per interval): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

You should now computer plausible values for the three lamdas $\lambda_{A_1}$, $\lambda_{A_2}$ and $\lambda_{A_3}$ to check, how much they overlap.

One out of endless possibilities to do that practically in R would be an Baysian regression using MCMCpack to illustrate:

library(MCMCpack)
counts <- c(18,17,15,5,10,13,27,29,31) # i.e., counts per interval
treatment <- gl(3,3) # three different treatments, three of each type
posterior <- MCMCpoisson(counts ~ treatment-1)
plot(posterior)
summary(posterior)

If you are not into Baysian analysis, you could certainly find a function for a 95% confidence interval for $\lambda$ in your favourite statistcs program. In Rsomething similar to:

summary(glm(counts ~ treatment -1, family = "poisson"))
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot, Bernhard! I wonder what I can conclude if the 95% CI do overlap. There may still be a significant difference even the confidence intervals slightly overlap, right? Is there a statistical test or how I can calculate the 95% CI of rate ratios to see if there is a significant difference? $\endgroup$
    – AprilCS
    Jan 25, 2018 at 1:21
  • $\begingroup$ As you speak of confidence intervals, I take it, that you are more interested in a Frequentist analysis. As you might have seen in my example, the summary of a glm object gives you $p$ values for each coefficient. In this simple case you could compute three models counts~treatment(no -1!) with just two different treatments/A-types each time and thus compute pairwise significance. That is certainly not the most elegant but probably simplest approach to $p$ values. $\endgroup$
    – Bernhard
    Jan 25, 2018 at 6:54
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your reply, Bernhard! I am not very familiar with R codes, but I suppose "treatment" in the codes was considered as an independent variable. However, in my data, there is not a treatment variable that could divide all individuals into 3 groups. I only know the type of event, but for those without an event, we could not group them (such as cause-specific death, if we ignored the recurrent nature). So I think the model you provided is not suitable for my purpose? $\endgroup$
    – AprilCS
    Jan 29, 2018 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ If you are not using R codes, the reasoning still is, that you could/should try to model this as Poisson or negative-binomially distributed and make inference on the incidence parameters in such a model. No matter what statistics software you use, there should be functions for generalized linear models - probably the place to look for Poisson- or NB-regression. When making my example code I started with some ready made example that I adjusted. There, they wanted to compare the incidences of some counts depending on a treatment. You will want to examine the incidences of three types of A. $\endgroup$
    – Bernhard
    Jan 30, 2018 at 7:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.