Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov 30;36(27):4391-4400.
doi: 10.1002/sim.7501. Epub 2017 Sep 15.

Practical recommendations for reporting Fine-Gray model analyses for competing risk data

Peter C Austin  1   2   3 , Jason P Fine  4   5
Affiliations

Practical recommendations for reporting Fine-Gray model analyses for competing risk data

Peter C Austin et al. Stat Med. .

Abstract

In survival analysis, a competing risk is an event whose occurrence precludes the occurrence of the primary event of interest. Outcomes in medical research are frequently subject to competing risks. In survival analysis, there are 2 key questions that can be addressed using competing risk regression models: first, which covariates affect the rate at which events occur, and second, which covariates affect the probability of an event occurring over time. The cause-specific hazard model estimates the effect of covariates on the rate at which events occur in subjects who are currently event-free. Subdistribution hazard ratios obtained from the Fine-Gray model describe the relative effect of covariates on the subdistribution hazard function. Hence, the covariates in this model can also be interpreted as having an effect on the cumulative incidence function or on the probability of events occurring over time. We conducted a review of the use and interpretation of the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model in articles published in the medical literature in 2015. We found that many authors provided an unclear or incorrect interpretation of the regression coefficients associated with this model. An incorrect and inconsistent interpretation of regression coefficients may lead to confusion when comparing results across different studies. Furthermore, an incorrect interpretation of estimated regression coefficients can result in an incorrect understanding about the magnitude of the association between exposure and the incidence of the outcome. The objective of this article is to clarify how these regression coefficients should be reported and to propose suggestions for interpreting these coefficients.

Keywords: competing risks; cumulative incidence function; subdistribution hazard model; survival analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Comparison of logit and complementary log‐log link functions [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457‐481.
    1. Cox D. Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J Royal Stat Soc ‐ Series B. 1972;34:187‐220.
    1. Tu JV, Donovan LR, Lee DS, et al. Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(21):2330‐2337. - PubMed
    1. Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation. 2016;133:601‐609. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lau B, Cole SR, Gange SJ. Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(2):244‐256. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp107 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources