Centre for Social Policy Research, Division Health Economics, Health Policy and Outcomes Research, University of Bremen, Ausser der Schleifmuehle 35-37, 28203 Bremen, Germany.
Diabetologia. 2011 Feb;54(2):308-11. doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-1909-3. Epub 2010 Sep 19.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In the February 2006 issue of Diabetologia, the observational Retrolective Study: Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose and Outcome in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (ROSSO) reported a 51% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes who performed self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). However, these impressive benefits conflict with results from observational studies and randomised controlled trials. We aimed to show that these findings are caused by a flawed design that introduced immortal time bias.
We illustrate the bias in the ROSSO study and demonstrate that it is large enough to completely explain the apparently protective effect of SMBG on all-cause mortality.
In the ROSSO study, patients were classified as exposed to SMBG for their whole follow-up time if they performed self-monitoring for at least 1 year during the study period. Thus, the time between cohort entry and the date after 1 year self-monitoring was performed is unavoidably 'immortal' for patients with SMBG. Patients had to survive at least 1 year to be classified as exposed to this intervention and were artificially 'protected' from death. Based on published information, the total amount of misclassified immortal person-time in the SMBG group is at least 5,082 of 9,248 person-years at risk (55%). After re-classification of immortal person-time as unexposed, the unadjusted relative risk changed from 0.59 to 1.95.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The apparently protective effect of SMBG on all-cause mortality observed in the ROSSO study is completely explained by immortal time bias.
目的/假设:在 2006 年 2 月的《糖尿病学》杂志上,回顾性研究:自我监测血糖与 2 型糖尿病患者结局(ROSSO)报告称,进行自我监测血糖(SMBG)的 2 型糖尿病患者全因死亡率风险降低了 51%。然而,这些令人印象深刻的益处与观察性研究和随机对照试验的结果相冲突。我们旨在表明,这些发现是由引入无生命时间偏倚的有缺陷的设计引起的。
我们说明了 ROSSO 研究中的偏差,并证明它大到足以完全解释 SMBG 对全因死亡率的明显保护作用。
在 ROSSO 研究中,如果患者在研究期间至少进行了 1 年的自我监测,则将其归类为整个随访期间接受 SMBG。因此,从队列入组到进行 1 年自我监测后的日期之间的时间对于接受 SMBG 的患者来说是不可避免的“无生命的”。患者必须至少存活 1 年才能被归类为接受这种干预措施,并且会被人为地“保护”免受死亡。基于已发表的信息,SMBG 组中错误分类的无生命个体时间至少为 9248 人年风险中的 5082 人年(55%)。在将无生命个体时间重新分类为未暴露后,未调整的相对风险从 0.59 变为 1.95。
结论/解释:在 ROSSO 研究中观察到的 SMBG 对全因死亡率的明显保护作用完全可以用无生命时间偏倚来解释。